University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Building employee engagement through human resources transition planning in mergers and acquisitions

(USC Thesis Other)

Building employee engagement through human resources transition planning in mergers and acquisitions

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Building Employee Engagement Through Human Resources Transition Planning in
Mergers and Acquisitions
by
Elizabeth Goodrich Cobb

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

August 2022

© Copyright by Elizabeth Goodrich Cobb 2022
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Elizabeth Goodrich Cobb certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Cathy Krop
Eric A. Canny
Jennifer L. Phillips, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2022

iv
Abstract
Unless exposed to social science research, organizational leaders may not recognize the
frequency in which merger and acquisition (M&A) transformations historically resulted in
failure. A reason cited for this outcome was the human element on both sides of the M&A
transaction. This study explored the use of a human resources (HR) transition plan in M&A to
determine whether it sustained employee engagement through the transformation event. The
primary stakeholders for this inductive, qualitative study were the participants from the corporate
offices of the acquiring and acquired companies. The Burke-Litwin (1992) organizational
performance and change model was the conceptual framework through which the study’s three
research questions were answered. The two instruments used for data collection were semi-
structured, open-ended interviews and document analysis. The research findings confirmed the
need for an HR transition plan, including communications and learning components. However,
the HR transition plan was a subset of a larger project integration plan that research participants
deemed critical to M&A integration success. Participants also implicitly expressed the need for
an integration leader to coordinate the M&A integration and departmental representation. The
intent of this research was to promote a positive employee experience in future M&A
transformations. Additionally, the study supported a seamless M&A business transaction,
accompanied by engagement, productivity, and profitability outcomes. Research findings
supported the use of an HR transition plan to achieve engagement, productivity, and profitability.
However, participant interview feedback indicted that leadership drove the employee
engagement, productivity, and revenue wins, in lieu of an HR plan.

v
Dedication
To my husband, Steve, and daughters, Lauren, and Allison (Allie), whose patience and support
made this academic achievement possible.

To my brother, Steven, who always paved the way.

To my parents, Richard, and Mary Goodrich, who never pushed me, always supported me,
and only asked me to do the best that you can.

To all of you. You have inspired me to become better every day than the day before.

vi
Acknowledgements
I acknowledge and thank my family. For 3 years, they saw most of my time directed
toward my professional and student lives at the expense of our family life. Our family time
together is special, and those missed opportunities can never be recaptured.
I believe success is a byproduct of effort, opportunity, and chance. Specific individuals
provided the opportunity that affected my life and career outcomes. Carol Shipley, a high school
teacher and my high school yearbook and newspaper editor, provided me with responsibilities as
a teen that built esteem and confidence for adulthood. She was also a lifelong family friend.
In my career, there are several leaders whose impact remained long after the months or
years in which we worked together. By emulating a behavior or decision I learned under their
tutelage, my leadership approach today is a direct reflection of their influence. I am indebted to
Carol Stuart for her patient style and innate kindness; to George Bongiorno for his direct
feedback and for recognizing my potential, despite my raw edges; to Rich Holt for teaching me
the art of asking questions; and to John Aquino for showing me the difference between managing
and leading. I thank Mike Walker, who recommended me for the best role of my career and
suggested M&A as a dissertation topic; John Hill for his mentorship, candor, and humor; John
Keilholz for resurrecting morale when a struggling organization and leadership team needed it
most. Last, I thank Gary Fulk and Rich Pfaltzgraff, exemplary leaders and men of character who
engaged their people at every level, held their teams accountable, and celebrated wins along the
way. Their collaboration with their HR partners to achieve company performance and
profitability through the development of their people demonstrated the power of engagement on
company results. It also reminded me why I chose this profession. Together, we made a
difference and had fun.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. x
List of Abbreviations ..................................................................................................................... xi
Chapter One: Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1
Organizational Context and Mission .................................................................................. 2
Importance of the Problem.................................................................................................. 4
Organizational Performance Goal ....................................................................................... 5
Stakeholder Group of Focus ............................................................................................... 5
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions .................................................................... 6
Overview of Conceptual Framework and Methodology .................................................... 6
Definitions......................................................................................................................... 10
Organization of the Dissertation ....................................................................................... 11
Chapter Two: Literature Review ...................................................................................... 12
Achieving Engagement with an M&A Transition Plan .................................................... 12
M&A as an Organizational Change Solution ................................................................... 13
Drivers of M&A Success and Failure ............................................................................... 14
Role of Employees in M&A Outcomes ............................................................................ 17
Promoting Employee Engagement Through HR Planning ............................................... 22
HR Transition Plan ........................................................................................................... 22
Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................... 27
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 29

viii
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 31
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 31
Research Method .............................................................................................................. 32
Data Collection, Instrumentation, and Analysis Plan ....................................................... 32
Ethics................................................................................................................................. 39
Interview Participants ....................................................................................................... 43
Research Question 1: How Engaged are Employees from ABC and XYZ
Companies with the Newly Combined ABC Company? .................................................. 48
Research Question 2: What Was the Experience of Employees From ABC and
XYZ Companies Through the Acquisition Process in the Formation of the Newly
Combined Company?........................................................................................................ 58
Research Question 3: In What Ways Did Employees Perceive Leadership as
Influencing Their Engagement Following the Acquisition? ............................................. 73
Summary of Findings ........................................................................................................ 84
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations......................................................................... 86
Discussion of Findings ...................................................................................................... 87
Limitations and Delimitations ........................................................................................... 98
Recommendations for Future Research .......................................................................... 100
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 101
References ................................................................................................................................... 103
Appendix A: Document Analysis Protocol..................................................................... 109
Appendix B: Interview Protocol ..................................................................................... 111
Appendix C: Information Sheet for Exempt Research ............................................................... 119

ix
List of Tables
Table 1 Post M&A Cultural Challenges and Solutions 27
Table 2 Data Sources 32
Table 3 Interview Participants from Acquiring (ABC) and Acquired (XYZ)
Companies
44
Table 4 Pattern of ABC and XYZ Responses to Four Identical Interview
Questions
53
Table 5 Participant Responses to Acquisition Impact: Interview Protocol
Question 12d
61
Table 6 Question 3c: Culture Developing at the Newly Combined ABC
Company
64
Table 7 Partial XYZ and ABC Participant Statements Regarding
Communication Concerns
71
Table 8 Participant Interview Feedback on Postacquisition Leadership 77
Table 9 2013-2021 ELT Turnover, ABC Turnover, and ABC Financials 84
Table B1 Protocol Crosswalk to Research Questions 110
Table B2 Participant Responses to Acquisition Impact: Interview Protocol
Question 13
114

x
List of Figures
Figure 1: Burke-Litwin Causal Model of Organizational Performance 8
Figure 2: Adaptation of the Burke-Litwin Causal Model of Organizational
Performance
29
Figure 3: Timeline of Acquisition Events 46
Figure 4: Adaptation of the Burke-Litwin Causal Model of Organizational
Performance for the Newly Combined ABC Company
92
Figure 5: Lewin’s 3-Stage Model of Change Lewin’s 3-Stage Model of Change 98

xi

List of Abbreviations
ABC Acquiring company of research study
OP&C Burke-Litwin organizational performance and change model
CEO Chief Executive Officer
CFO Chief Financial Officer
CHRO Chief Human Resources Officer
COO Chief Operating Officer
ELT Executive Leadership Team
FTE Full Time Employee
HR Human Resources
IT Information Technology
M&A Mergers and Acquisitions
XYZ Acquired company of research study

1

Chapter One: Introduction
In the shifting and volatile markets of the 21st century, companies pursue organizational
change vigorously. Whether the result of an economic downturn (Powley, 2013); uncertainty and
disruption (Goodman, 2016); cost cutting (Sung, 2017); or the pursuit of technological synergies
(Sung, 2017), globalization, and diversification (Schraeder & Self, 2003), many organizations
have sought mergers and acquisitions (M&A) as a transformational change solution. M&A have
been a focus of organizational change literature for the past 4 decades, growing in frequency
since the 1985 acquisition of Nabisco Brands by Reynolds Industries (Wright et al., 1996),
Hewlett Packard’s acquisition of Apollo Computer in 1989 (Legare, 1998), and other M&A
deals from the late 80s and early 90s.
Although organizational interest in M&A seems constant, M&A success remains elusive
and inconsistent, despite continued evaluation of the practice. According to Goodman (2016),
only one third of M&A deals reported a successful transition upon completion. Bruner (2002),
Koi-Akrofi (2016), and Nguyen and Kleiner (2003) supported this assertion, citing M&A studies
with failure rates exceeding 70%. The reported causes of historical M&A failures varied, but one
contributing factor recurred repeatedly in reviewed research: the human element (Applebaum
2000; Weber, 2015). Specifically, Weber (2015) argued that transition failure rates were the
result of inadequate human resources (HR) planning.
The inclusion of an HR plan can improve the prospect of a seamless conversion for
organizational transformations like M&A (Weber, 2015). Shook and Roth (2011) affirmed this
theory, reporting that HR professionals from 13 organizations watched their companies push
employee change considerations to the rear of their conversion efforts. Unintentionally, these
companies focused more on process and technology, functions that are also critical to business
2

continuation when M&A deals close (Davies et al., 2011). Employee messaging and learning
considerations followed instead of being prioritized from the start of the implementation project
(Shook & Roth, 2011). This communication void left acquired employees feeling disrespected,
unappreciated, and unwelcomed by their new employer (Davies et al., 2011). Shook and Roth
(2011) observed operational and cultural chaos when transitioning organizations did not
incorporate HR planning from the outset of their change initiative. This pattern recurred in M&A
change efforts for decades (Applebaum, 2000; Davies et al., 2011; Legare, 1998; Salame, 2006;
Schraeder & Self, 2003; Shook & Roth, 2011; Weber, 2015).
Organizational Context and Mission
ABC Company (ABC) is the pseudonym for the acquiring organization in this study, and
XYZ Company (XYZ) is the pseudonym for the acquired organization. The organization at the
center of the study is ABC. On December 31, 2019, ABC acquired competitor XYZ, composed
of 400 employees and 115 branches. Postacquisition, the newly combined ABC became a 1,500-
employee, privately owned consumer-lending company with 415 branches in 11 states. ABC’s
integration efforts initially focused on its own and XYZ’s technological infrastructure and core
processes. The operational units of both companies, which employed 90% of the joint employee
population, were unaffected by acquisition-related events until 1-year postacquisition. Only one
organizational dynamic changed in their first year together: ABC’s Chief Executive Officer
(CEO) assumed operational control of ABC and XYZ in mid-2020. Otherwise, no additional
organizational changes occurred in the operations unit until January 2021.
From July 2019 through December 2019, the 150 employees of ABC’s and XYZ’s
corporate offices prepared for the change of ownership on December 31, 2019. On January 1,
2020, these same corporate employees pivoted from transition preparation to organizational
3

integration, as ABC and XYZ began formalizing their union technologically, operationally, and
procedurally. Simultaneously, the leaders of the new ABC prioritized cost-reduction
opportunities between the legacy ABC and XYZ entities. ABC’s executive team determined that
the duplicate finance, HR, information technology, marketing, and administrative functions were
redundant. As a result, ABC executives and the XYZ CEO agreed to close the legacy XYZ
corporate office 6 months hence, on June 30, 2020. The decision to centralize corporate office
functions was expected to eliminate 40 corporate XYZ jobs.
Published M&A research supporting HR transition planning had been accumulating for
decades when ABC acquired XYZ in 2019. This historical research suggested that
comprehensive planning, including frequent communication and employee learning, increased
the likelihood of a successful M&A transformation (Bijlsma-Frakema, 2001). Additionally, a
deliberate focus on the human element during an organizational transition should improve an
organization’s operations, profitability, retention, and employee engagement (Applebaum 2000;
Davies et al., 2011; Legare, 1998; Salame, 2006; Schraeder & Self, 2003; Shook & Roth, 2011;
Weber, 2015). This research study explored the inclusion of an HR transition plan in ABC’s
acquisition of XYZ to determine if the intervention influenced employee engagement through the
transition period. The HR transition plan used to create the newly combined ABC Company
featured communications components only. The communications included the following items:
• An October 2019 announcement to XYZ employees of the impending acquisition
event
• A November 2019 notification to XYZ employees of an upgraded version of HR
management software for 2020 time and attendance (with December 2019 training
dates) and 2020 benefits (with December 2019 benefits enrollment dates)
4

• A January 2, 2020, announcement to all ABC and XYZ employees regarding the
legal transfer of ownership on December 31, 2019, of XYZ to ABC, creating the
newly combined ABC Company
• An April 2020 calendar of communications dates and other critical events related to
the messaging and subsequent closure of the XYZ corporate office on June 30, 2020
• Talking points for the XYZ CEO for April 3, 2020, to communicate the June 30,
2020, XYZ corporate office closure to the 40 affected XYZ employees
• Question and answer documents made available to ABC and XYZ leaders at the ABC
and XYZ corporate offices to address employee questions regarding the XYZ
corporate office closure, following the April 3, 2020, announcement
Importance of the Problem
Despite high failure rates, companies continued using M&A as a strategic survival tactic,
with employees as the most affected stakeholders of this transformational change approach (Aon
Hewitt, 2013; Applebaum, 2000). When advanced planning and communications were missing
in an M&A transition, Salame (2006) observed engagement drop, valued employees resign, and
conflict thrive in an organization. Unsuccessful M&A outcomes propelled disengagement.
Employees could no longer identify with their companies, envision a future for themselves, or
articulate their company’s vision (Aon Hewitt, 2013). This problem is important because
employee engagement and organizational productivity are positively correlated (Tian et al.,
2019), and prior research suggested that transition planning improved both engagement and the
probability of a successful change event (Schraeder & Self, 2003; Shook & Roth, 2011). M&A
may continue serving the economy as a business alternative for ailing and expanding
organizations (Sung, 2017), but employees do not need to be a casualty of their companies’
5

transformational changes. By developing a comprehensive HR transition plan with a
communication timeline, specific employee messaging, and a learning blueprint, employees on
both sides of the M&A transaction could find themselves excited about their transition and what
their new company may achieve (Aon Hewitt, 2013; Applebaum, 2000; Salame, 2006; Schraeder
& Self, 2003; Shook & Roth, 2011; Sung, 2017; Tian et al., 2019).
Organizational Performance Goal
ABC’s shareholders measure the company’s success by its profitability, but the
organizational performance goal of this study was employee engagement. Employee engagement
was also the primary metric of the study. Prior research found a moderate to strong positive
correlation between profitability and employee engagement (Baur & Schmitz, 2012; Benjamin,
2008; Salkind & Frey, 2019; Schraeder & Self, 2003; Shook & Roth, 2011). For this study,
employee engagement was evaluated through feedback from open-ended, semi structured
interviews and document analysis with legacy ABC and XYZ corporate office employees who
were employed 6 months preacquisition, 6 months postacquisition, and on the date of data
collection.
Stakeholder Group of Focus
The employees from the legacy ABC and XYZ were the assessors of postacquisition
engagement, and they were the study’s primary stakeholders (Baur & Schmitz, 2012; Benjamin,
2008). The secondary stakeholders were the leaders and shareholders of the newly combined
ABC, because both parties sought performance, productivity, and profit from the newly
combined company. For both primary and secondary stakeholders, the stakeholder goal was
improved postacquisition employee engagement as compared to preacquisition engagement. If
improved engagement were achieved, the newly combined ABC could expect increased
6

production, improved revenue, and higher employee retention (Baur & Schmitz, 2012;
Benjamin, 2008; Harter et al., 2012; Tian et al., 2019).
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to explore how to promote a positive employee experience
in M&A transformations, including the role of HR transition planning. Engagement was not
measured in the company at the time of the transformation, so this study served to establish a
baseline understanding of engagement. Without HR transition planning, employee needs may be
overlooked by integration leaders, creating engagement, retention, and performance gaps (Davies
et al., 2011). Engagement was the study’s focus and informed the three questions of its research
design:
1. How engaged are employees from ABC and XYZ with the newly combined ABC?
2. What was the experience of employees from ABC and XYZ during the acquisition
process in the formation of the newly combined ABC?
3. In what ways did employees perceive leadership as influencing their engagement
following the acquisition?
Overview of Conceptual Framework and Methodology
Maxwell (2013) described a study’s conceptual framework as a system of assumptions
and theories that inform the research. A conceptual framework also defines the relationships
among the study’s key concepts, and in this study, the key concepts were employee engagement,
M&A, and an HR transition plan (Maxwell, 2013). Merriam and Tisdell (2016) noted that a
framework relies on specific disciplinary models to isolate the problem in a study. The
disciplinary model on which this study’s framework was based is the Burke-Litwin
organizational performance and change model (OP&C), which is used by social scientists to
7

assess the state or health of an organization (Burke & Litwin, 1992). The Burke-Litwin
Organizational Assessment Survey is a diagnostic tool that measures the degree to which an
organization—in this case, ABC—aligns with the OP&C model (Stone, 2015). Based on survey
results, the organization can gauge whether an intervention is necessary to restore its corporate
equilibrium. The OP&C conceptual framework is depicted in Figure 1, and it is divided into
transformational and transactional factors that together drive individual and organizational
performance (Burke & Litwin, 1992; Stone, 2015). Each factor is composed of multiple input
variables that trigger levers in the organizational system, affecting output or performance. The
Burke-Litwin model predicts cause and effect, becoming a medium for diagnosing issues and
managing organizational change (Burke & Litwin, 1992).

8

Figure 1
Burke-Litwin Causal Model of Organizational Performance

In this study, the Burke-Litwin framework was applied through an inductive research
approach (Burke & Litwin, 1992). The research methodology was qualitative, focusing on the
research participants and how they interpreted their experiences (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) and
comprehended life events (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The three research questions were
informed by the Burke-Litwin framework, influencing the collection of employee feedback, a
focus on employee engagement, and an exploration of the 12 transformational and transactional
factors of the OP&C model (Burke & Litwin, 1992). For example, Research Question 1 and
9

Research Question addressed employee engagement and the employee experience, exploring
transactional inputs like work unit climate and motivation and the transformational input of
culture. Research Question 3 incorporated both transactional and transformational factors, with
climate and motivation representing a transactional perspective on engagement and with
leadership as a transformational influence. Wholistically, the interview protocol sought employee
feedback through transformational and transactional interview questions. Transformational
interview question inputs included organization, leadership, mission and strategy, and culture.
Transactional interview question inputs were motivation, knowledge, task requirements,
individual skills and abilities, policies, and procedures (HR transition plan), organization
systems, and individual needs and values.

10

Definitions
Employee engagement was the primary concept of this research study. Professional
services firm Aon Hewitt (2013) described employee engagement as a state beyond feelings or
attitudes that inspires an individual to do whatever is required to have a positive impact on their
business environment. Llewellyn-Neikam (2017) connected employee engagement to
organizational outcomes like profitability, product quality, and customer commitment.
Llewellyn-Neikam (2017) also concluded that companies expecting change could monitor
engagement before and after a transition to predict business continuity and productivity.
Employee engagement is strongly correlated with this study’s other key concepts, M&A and HR
transition planning (Applebaum, 2000; Davies et al., 2011; Legare, 1998; Salame, 2006;
Schraeder & Self, 2003; Shook & Roth, 2011; Weber, 2015).
Mergers and acquisitions was a second key concept of this study. An M&A transaction
occurs when one organization buys (acquires) or joins (merges with) another (Llewellyn-
Neikam, 2017). The acquired company is often smaller, so the acquiring organization can absorb
the smaller company into its current infrastructure. This study focused on employee engagement
after an acquisition at the newly combined company as compared to engagement at the two
legacy companies before the acquisition (Llewellyn-Neikam, 2017).
I defined a human resources transition plan as activities, responsibilities,
communications, and deadlines that support the human element of an organizational
transformation. Activities include but are not limited to employee-related project plans,
communication plans, training or learning plans, pre and post transformation measurement, and
cultural collaboration between the acquiring and acquired organizations.
11

Organization of the Dissertation
This research study is organized into five chapters. Chapter 1 introduces the organization,
problem of practice, stakeholder groups, and research questions that framed the study. Chapter 2
reviews recent and historic literature on the study’s key concepts of M&A, employee
engagement, and HR transition planning for organizational transformations. Chapter 2 also
defines the study’s stakeholders and raises inductive research questions using the OP&C model
(Burke & Litwin, 1992). Chapter 3 describes the ethical assumptions that framed the research
methodology and outlines the data collection and participant selection processes in detail.
Chapter 4 reviews the analysis of all data collected and findings from the perspective of the
OP&C model (Burke & Litwin, 1992). Chapter 5 concludes the study by providing
recommendations for organizations considering M&A that are informed by the conceptual
framework, cited literature, and the analyzed data and findings.

12

Chapter Two: Literature Review
Chapter 2 offers a thorough review of published M&A research from the 80s through the
present day. The range of this research period was intentional, given the volume of M&A
research conducted in this timeframe, the similarity of the challenges, and the consistency of the
research findings. Despite the accessibility of research publications on this topic, organizations
seemed to pursue M&A as a solution for similar issues yet often repeated the same mistakes. The
predominant common denominator during the review period was high M&A failure rates (Aon
Hewitt, 2013; Applebaum, 2000; Cartwright, 2006, 2012; Goodman, 2016; Sung, 2017). To
understand how to achieve engagement through an M&A transformation event, Chapter 2
reviews the recurring reasons for deploying M&A, contributing factors to M&A successes and
failures, an employee’s role in M&A engagement and culture creation, and pre and post event
planning that influences M&A outcomes, including employee communications and learning (or
training).
Achieving Engagement with an M&A Transition Plan
Organizational practitioners studied M&A as a transitional change solution as many as 30
years prior to this study (Wright et al., 1996). During this time, the business rationale for M&A
varied by industry and organization. As recently as 2020, however, two variables continued to be
associated with M&A transformations: (a) the frequency of M&A failures and (b) a lack of
integration planning as the root cause of M&A failures (Deloitte, 2020). When conducting
empirical studies, researchers typically referenced and cited publications from the past decade to
understand the most current data and research analysis on a subject (Galvan & Galvan, 2017).
For this study, 4 decades of M&A, HR, and employee engagement literature are referenced. In
some cases, M&A failures are correlated with transformations that did not prioritize the human
13

impact of the change (Applebaum, 2000). Without deliberate employee messaging, learning, and
communications in the M&A integration plan, employees lacked the tools to maintain production
or provide support for their companies post M&A (Schraeder & Self, 2003). As a result, M&A
failures recurred despite available literature offering solutions (Deloitte, 2020). Suggested
interventions included proactive and frequent communications and learning programs that could
improve the employee experience and the success of the initiative (Salame, 2006).
M&A as an Organizational Change Solution
When organizations struggle with increasing economic, regulatory, or business pressures,
advisory services firms like Aon Hewitt (2013) or Deloitte (2020) may recommend M&A as a
solution to relieve them. Sung (2017) concluded that companies turn to M&A to increase
competitiveness, decrease costs, consolidate markets, create synergies, and access new products
or technology. One contributor to the Journal of Management mentioned M&A as an
opportunity to drive organizational growth, expand capabilities, and reduce competition (Brueller
et al., 2016). Goodman (2016) agreed when he remarked that M&A was the biggest driver of
revenue growth and business transformation. Goodman (2016) also indicated that international
companies averaged seven business transformations every 3 years, validating Cartwright’s
(2006) assertion that globalization and international competition drive M&A demand. Between
2006 and 2016, Aon Hewitt (2013), Brueller et al. (2016), Cartwright (2006), and Goodman
(2016) reported M&A as the prescribed remedy for most organizational maladies. Deloitte
(2020) published an executive summary forecasting an additional $10 trillion of domestic M&A
transactions in the coming year. The 1,000 executives surveyed predicted the prevailing
organizational issues to be divestures, data protection and related regulations, shareholder
activism, and political and trade instability (Deloitte, 2020).
14

Although M&A was the selected change approach for many diagnosed organizational
issues, Cartwright (2012) discovered that only half of the benefits promised in an M&A
transition were delivered. When organizational commitments were not met, employees were the
stakeholders most negatively affected. Employees experienced job ambiguity, uncertainty, and in
some cases, job loss (Cartwright, 2012). When transformational change is unsuccessful, the
psychological contract between employee and employer can be broken. This relationship is
critically important and connected to the success of change efforts (Cartwright, 2012). If the
employer breaks the trust of its employee relationships, employees may feel cynicism,
frustration, and a general skepticism toward leadership (Sung, 2017). Brueller et al. (2016)
confirmed that companies pursuing M&A often missed their original objectives, also resulting in
lost profitability and shareholder value (Sung, 2017). Goodman (2016) found M&A failure rates
in excess of 70% and Deloitte (2020, p. 3) acknowledged that M&A transactions may not
achieve the intended return on investment; thus, this study explored the source of low M&A
success rates.
Drivers of M&A Success and Failure
To understand the root cause of reported M&A successes and failures, several researchers
launched rigorous M&A inquiries. Seven studies not only produced failure prevention strategies
but also highlighted best practices for companies to emulate. As a result, researchers offered
practical solutions for organizations seeking to maximize future transformation opportunities
(Applebaum, 2000; Bijlsma-Frankema, 2001; Goodman, 2016; Koi-Akrofi, 2016; Legare, 1998;
Schraeder & Self, 2003; Shook & Roth, 2011).
15

M&A Success and Effects on Employees
Based on his findings, Appelbaum (2000) recommended that the M&A company leader
launch the project with a model of the combined organization’s future state. He also suggested
the model be shareable with employees because it would be central to initial internal
communications. Appelbaum (2000) concluded that early and frequent employee communication
was critical to gaining employee trust, so he suggested the lead company communicate to
employees as soon as a decision to merge or acquire was made public. To gain and maintain this
trust, the communication had to be open, honest, and transparent from the start. Applebaum
(2020) determined that employees found little information preferable to no information.
Schraeder and Self (2003) and Applebaum (2000) advised that internal communication should
always precede public communication. Applebaum (2020) also asserted that early and frequent
communication fostered postacquisition culture adoption. He supported this theory by
demonstrating a positive correlation between cultural incompatibility and low performance
(Appelbaum, 2000). Last, the M&A implementation project has to include communications and
learning plans to ensure employees begin transitioning to the new company as early as the first
communication, so the transition feels more natural when the M&A event occurs (Appelbaum,
2000; Schraeder & Self, 2003).
In addition to early, frequent, and transparent communications, Bijlsma-Frankema (2001)
argued that newly combined companies could come together by sharing professional
assignments and joint successes. The experience legitimized their union (Bijlsma-Frankema,
2001). Wins between representatives from both companies inspired additional exchanges,
ultimately resulting in interpersonal relationships beyond the task at hand. Bijlsma-Frankema
(2001) also concluded that leaders should solicit feedback about the transition from employees in
16

each legacy organization. More importantly, these leaders should act on the feedback received to
maintain the foundation of trust they built, especially with acquired employees. Post M&A,
Goodman (2016) observed the critical influence and impact generated by senior leadership. By
visiting and supporting employees in their individual departments, senior management facilitated
employees’ sense of one combined company (Goodman, 2016).
M&A Failure and Effects on Employees
Common employee reactions to poor communication or unfulfilled M&A commitments
were loss of identity, anxiety, insecurity, and stress (Guerrero, 2008). These feelings were
accompanied by a fear of layoffs, change in pay or benefits, and restructuring. Employees also
demonstrated defensiveness, and an us-versus-them mentality toward the other company
(Applebaum, 2000; Bijlsma-Frankema, 2001; Koi-Akrofi, 2016). Legare (1998) conducted
research on the impact of poor planning. When Hewlett-Packard did not create an integration
plan or communication strategy for its acquisition of Apollo Computer, Legare (1998) observed
employees filling the communication void with angst, conflict, and uncertainty (Legare, 1998).
When the transition was complete, the two cultures were at odds with each other, and employees
described feeling uncertain of their organization’s direction, affecting both motivation and
productivity (Applebaum, 2000; Legare, 1998). When Shook and Roth (2011) interviewed 13
HR practitioners for an M&A initiative with employee reductions, they learned that none of the
HR professionals had been included in due diligence or implementation planning (Shook &
Roth, 2011). Koi-Akrofi (2016) stated the root cause of M&A failures was unintentional
disregard for the human factor, including leadership apathy and an awareness of cultural
differences and the need for frequent communication. These examples of employee fallout from
several imperfect M&A transitions are among thousands of deals that occur annually. The
17

research presented raises questions about the influence of an HR transition plan with both
communication and learning components and how it could affect the employee engagement
experience.
Role of Employees in M&A Outcomes
When two firms join to create a new entity, leaders of the newly combined company
might use management interventions to facilitate their cultural integration (Schein & Schein,
2018). Organizational interventions have been designed to support a new culture, propel trust
between employee and employer, eliminate the us-versus-them mentality, and build the
foundations of employee engagement in the newly combined company (Cartwright, 2006). Other
practices that facilitate collaboration include planned dialogue between legacy companies and
the celebration of their collective successes. Harter et al. (2012) found these situations to foster
employee engagement and interest in the newly combined company’s culture. Additionally, the
researchers recorded a positive relationship between improved employee engagement and
organizational profitability (Harter et al., 2012).
Employee Engagement
Aon Hewitt (2013) found highly engaged employees to be resilient to organizational
change, whereas their counterparts were consistently more vulnerable, disengaged, and likely to
leave. Avey’s (2008) assessment of 132 employees from a cross-section of companies and
professions affirmed the power of engagement. Although Avey (2008) confirmed that employee
resistance was a roadblock to transformational change, he also found that hope, self-efficacy, and
optimism created organizational citizenship and post transition resilience. One proven
intervention occurred when an organization established a preacquisition baseline and a
postacquisition target to promote change. By doing so, the company established a common
18

vision in the newly combined company, introducing excitement in bringing the two companies
together (Avey, 2008). When employees saw the future of the newly combined company and
what they were working toward, they were more likely to embrace an expected merger or
acquisition and accelerated their transition to the new culture. The alternative was daunting: Aon
(2013) found the impact of negative M&A experiences lingered up to 3 years until engagement
reached preacquisition levels.
Cartwright (2006) compared employee engagement and the effect of change between
friendly and hostile acquisition change events. Cartwright (2006) learned that context affects
employee engagement and the seamlessness of the change effort. Postacquisition, if the event
was advantageous to employees, their reactions were favorable. Conversely, hostile acquisitions
incited resistance and negative attitudes. However, as Bijlsma-Frankema (2001) discovered,
mixing work teams of the acquiring, and acquired companies eliminated alliance barriers. By
learning new methods together, the mixed teams adopted change together and envisioned
themselves as teammates (Cartwright, 2006).
The Gallup Q12 is a tool used by organizational practitioners to measure employee
engagement and performance. Developed in 1996, the Q12 is a standardized, quasi-experimental
instrument with 12 questions tested in 263 published research studies at 192 organizations in 49
industries in 34 countries with 1,390,941 employees (Harter et al., 2012). Since 1996, the Q12
has repeatedly demonstrated high generalizability across firms and industry groups with
employee engagement measures. Reliability and validity have been consistently strong and are
reported annually (Harter et al., 2012). A significant finding of this Q12 study (Harter et al.,
2012) was the identification of a strong relationship between employee engagement and
performance (r = .42). Additionally, results indicated that business units in the top 50% of
19

engagement results were twice as likely to succeed than their less engaged counterparts (Harter
et al., 2012). Another theme that emerged from the Q12 study (Harter et al., 2012) aligned with
Avey’s (2008) and Cartwright’s (2006) findings: Employees who envisioned their future at the
newly combined company were more committed and demonstrated stronger performance
through the M&A event. Harter et al. (2012) also discovered that post M&A, positive and
engaged employees connected emotion, attitude, and action to individual performance,
supporting Aon Hewitt’s (2013) observations on personal commitment. For this study, the most
important finding by Harter et al. (2012) was a strong, positive correlation between employee
engagement and organizational profitability.
Culture
The focus on a post transition culture should begin early and include a clear mission and
objective for the newly combined company (Schraeder & Self, 2003). The mission may change
as the newly combined company evolves, but a common goal for the integrating organization is
fostering solutions to the same problem, increasing employee familiarity across legacy
companies, and reducing employee anxiety. These actions can launch a favorable relationship
between the organizations, guiding employees through the first weeks and months of the
postacquisition acclimation period (Schraeder & Self, 2003).
Companies may focus on business operations, technological infrastructure, or financials
immediately after the M&A transaction to ensure that system processes and profitability remain
uninterrupted. Schraeder and Self (2003) suggested that companies also focus on intracompany
relationships, organizational goals, and post M&A cultural development, given the role of
employees in production. Because every stage of an M&A integration affects employees,
Schraeder and Self (2003) advised intermittent HR interventions to keep employees informed
20

during and after the event. For example, some merging and acquiring companies leverage their
front-line managers for training and socialization between the organizations, facilitating trust and
building the foundation of their new post transition culture (Appelbaum, 2000). Realistic job
previews are another proactive intervention used by acquiring companies and offered to acquired
employees. Job previews provide insight into the roles employees may consider for themselves
in the postacquisition environment (Schraeder & Self, 2003). Employees who relate personally to
their organization are more likely to work toward the best interest of their company (Harter et al.,
2012). Because M&A transitions can threaten an employee’s legacy role and identity, the
employee may fear for their future. However, an M&A integration team that ensures employee
objectives are reflected in the post M&A company leads employees to be eager to identify with
their post M&A team (Boen, 2010). In terms of establishing a company’s post M&A culture,
communication was the most powerful intervention in one study (Boen, 2010).
For clashing legacy cultures, frequent and transparent communication is the preferred
approach to address negativity and distrust between employees. For these incidents, Schraeder
and Self (2003) and Applebaum (2000) concluded that transition leaders must be open, honest,
and authentic about the transition plan when engaging with employees before and after the
acquisition. The researchers discovered that cultural incompatibility was a leading cause of post
M&A performance issues (Applebaum, 2000; Bijlsma-Frankema, 2001; Schraeder & Self,
2003). Davies et al. (2011) studied a cultural challenge and its effects on employees when
Electronic Resource Options initiated a hostile acquisition of Network Systems. In a postmortem
discussion, the acquiring company learned that a professionally administered, pre-M&A cultural
needs analysis could have proactively identified conflict areas, enabling both companies to
address conflict issues before integration launched (Davies et al., 2011).
21

Regarding M&A discord Bijlsma-Frankema (2001) concluded that: (a) the us-versus-
them mentality comes from pride in the old firm’s culture, (b) structural change preceded
cultural change, and (c) discord cannot be dispelled without management intervention.
Conversely, Bijlsma-Frankema (2001) suggested the promotion of the following organizational
elements would offset M&A cultural challenges:
• Cultural similarities between organizations
• Cultural potential like innovation, technology, and growth
• Integrative potential, size, competence, and name recognition
• Leadership, a clear mission, and shared goals
• Security, efficacy, culture of feedback, culture of acceptance, and inclusion
As a social science researcher, Bijlsma-Frankema (2001) argued that feedback, including acting
on feedback, was the foundation of success in any transition.
Koi-Akrofi (2016) attributed M&A failures to breakdowns in the integration stage of the
acquisition. Forty-five percent of the Fortune 500 Chief Financial Officers (CFOs) surveyed in
Koi-Akrofi’s 2016 study attributed M&A failures to unexpected, post deal, people problems.
Koi-Akrofi (2016) considered acquiring organizations to be in their most vulnerable state on the
day of conversion. Conversion day was also the most critical day of the integration project. At
this point in the transformation, communications, culture, and other intracompany differences
were most exposed and pronounced. When employee concerns were not fully addressed
preconversion, employee issues arose after the change of control occurred (Koi-Akrofi, 2016).
Culture and engagement are topics frequently linked to M&A research in business and
the social sciences. The messaging on themes for maximizing employee engagement and culture
through the M&A transformation are consistent. Additionally, productivity and profitability
22

statistics that accompany favorable employee engagement maintain a positive relationship
(Applebaum 2000; Davies et al., 2011; Legare, 1998; Salame, 2006; Schraeder & Self, 2003;
Shook & Roth, 2011; Weber, 2015). This study focused on M&A interventions that ABC
deployed in its 2019 acquisition of XYZ and accompanying post transformation employee
feedback.
Promoting Employee Engagement Through HR Planning
The premise of this study is that HR transition planning influences an employee’s M&A
transformation experience, influencing post transition employee engagement (Weber, 2015). In
an M&A integration, an organizational practitioner must determine where to insert the HR plan
levers of communications and learning. This step is critical because communications affect
employee perceptions of M&A project effectiveness. Because uncertainty and anxiety spread
quickly, all interventions should be planned in advance of their delivery date. Additionally,
Applebaum (2000) emphasized that employee messaging should precede public announcements,
even if only by a few minutes. Doing so would demonstrate the transparency and authenticity in
communications that employees seek. Acquiring and acquired leaders could then launch the
M&A initiative, having established the trust of their organizations as the first step toward an
employee-friendly, post M&A work culture (Applebaum, 2000; Avey, 2008; Bijlsma-Frankema,
2001; Boen, 2010; Cartwright, 2006; Davies et al., 2011; Koi-Akrofi, 2016); Legare, 1998;
Salame, 2006; Schraeder & Self, 2003; Shook & Roth, 2011; Weber, 2015).
HR Transition Plan
The employee experience in M&A is strongly influenced by the timing of HR
interventions, as outlined in an HR transition plan. The HR transition plan defines the
intervention, whether communications or learning, and indicates the timing when each is
23

deployed: either preacquisition or postacquisition. The HR transition plan is part of the M&A
integration project plan, and its timeline should launch before the M&A announcement is
publicly shared. HR transition plan interventions prepare employees for the upcoming
organizational change through messaging, information, knowledge, and skills training. With
these tools, acquired employees are prepared for the acquisition event and have the foundation
necessary to succeed in the newly combined company (Cartwright, 2012).
Communication
Communication is a critical tool for any organizational change initiative, but it is the
most powerful lever in M&A transformations (Applebaum, 2000). Organizational messaging
drives employee perception of postacquisition engagement, culture, productivity, and
profitability (Gadiesh & Ormiston, 2002). Aon Hewitt (2013) suggested leaders seek employee
feedback on future communication approaches as they relate to the employee experience.
Leaders could use this feedback to confirm that project communications met employees’ needs
for the upcoming M&A project. Preacquisition, Appelbaum (2000) recommended that
communications begin with the M&A announcement to the public. At that stage, employee
communications would not include details, but M&A leaders could provide a timeline to
employees on when additional information will be forthcoming. These leaders could also share
nonpropriety information about both legacy organizations and the vision for the newly combined
company. The more employees felt like their pre-M&A company was reflected in the post M&A
organization, the more likely they were to identify with the newly combined company (Boen,
2010).
Communication was also the most important contributor to trust between employee and
employer and the successful integration of two cultures at the newly combined company
24

(Applebaum, 2000). For example, if the M&A requires a reduction in force to achieve
postacquisition goals, the timing, authenticity, and transparency of the acquiring leaders’
communication must be carefully considered (Applebaum, 2000). Koi-Akrofi (2016) cautioned
leadership against perceived apathy toward employee well-being, especially if the transition is
stressful with tight deadlines or an expected reduction in force. In tense transitions, employees
became disengaged, and production dragged into the acquisition event (Guerrero, 2008). To
build and retain trust with acquired employees, messaging related to reductions should be relayed
to affected employees as soon as feasibly possible (Applebaum 2000; Bijlsma-Frakema, 2001).
With this additional time, leadership can demonstrate empathy and respect to their new
teammates with support services like outplacement, severance, and regular communications
about open jobs (Applebaum, 2000). Last, the advanced notice can create time for planned
learning for the acquired employee population. Learning can focus on building the knowledge
and skills required to navigate the acquired company’s products, processes, and services
(Guerrero, 2008). By understanding the acquiring company’s infrastructure and vernacular,
acquired employees can adapt to the newly combined company before the acquisition occurs.
The threat of retaliatory post M&A underperformance further underscores the importance
of pre-M&A communication (Shook & Roth, 2011). Revisiting Avey (2008) and Cartwright
(2006), acquired employees who are not clear on their future goals do not contribute 100%
postacquisition to their newly combined company. Before any M&A event, acquiring leaders
must engage all employees with the vision of the newly combined company by clearly
articulating the goals required to achieve this vision (Avey, 2008; Cartwright, 2006). With
M&A, outcomes were most successful when leaders communicated early (preacquisition) and
often. Communication has to be transparent and authentic (Applebaum, 2000). If employee
25

impacts are expected, details should be provided as soon as they are known to maintain trust
between employee and employer (Steger & Kummer, 2007). Communication is considered the
most important variable in M&A for building a company’s postacquisition culture, and
organizations that leverage a communication plan experience a more seamless M&A
transformation (Applebaum, 2000).
Learning
Like communication, learning plays an impactful role in the employee M&A experience
and contributes to post M&A engagement, self-efficacy, and perception of the newly combined
organization (Cartwright, 2012). With knowledge and skill training, learning initiatives can
nullify acquired employee cynicism by creating task significance and autonomy through
knowledge transfer. Acquired employees can make connections with their future employer and
find meaning in the workplace (Cartwright, 2012). Because training can include content from
both the acquired and acquiring companies, employees from each company can interact
preacquisition to form interpersonal relationships that they sustain throughout the M&A
transformation. In this manner, learning helps companies regain their equilibrium after disruption
by M&A challenges (Cartwright, 2012).
Guerrero (2008) assessed mixed work teams in an M&A plagued by organizational
identity and employee insecurity issues. As M&A learning teams introduced new processes and
methods to these mixed teams, the barriers between acquiring and acquired broke down, and
postacquisition adoption progressed quickly. Supervisors stepped in to offer social support,
further assuaging acquired employees’ insecurities (Goodman, 2016).
Before the learning team builds an M&A curriculum, Goodman (2016) suggested that
leaders solicit employee feedback on process and input redesigns and input for the newly
26

combined organization. Goodman (2016) also advised learning practitioners to incorporate
organizational behaviors into the learning curriculum that align with the newly combined
company’s vision, goals, and values. By incorporating these elements into employee learning,
the learning practitioners can build trust between employer and employee and reinforce their
developing relationship (Goodman, 2016).
By offering communication and learning before, during, and after an M&A event, planful
organizations may avoid employee-related challenges like stress, underperformance, or culture
gaps (Applebaum, 2000). Alternatively, HR planning that includes open, transparent, and timely
communication and employee-driven curriculum can help post M&A organizations to achieve
profitability and productivity in addition to employee engagement (Applebaum, 2000; Goodman,
2016).
As an M&A event concludes, organizations slowly return to a business-as-usual state.
Integration initiatives may continue after converting core technology, operations, and financial
systems, but they may be delegated to departmental projects or lose their prioritization status.
Guerrero (2008) found the context of the M&A initiative strongly affects employee attitudes
toward the M&A event and postacquisition environment. Schraeder and Self (2003) identified
four employee cultural challenges that organizations encountered with M&A transformations, as
identified in Table 1. The researchers offered solutions to counter the challenges and surveyed
employees 12 to 18 months postacquisition to determine if the employees had surmounted the
issues over time (Schraeder & Self, 2003). Applebaum (2000) observed that organizations could
require up to 3 years to return to preacquisition employee engagement levels.

27

Table 1
Post M&A Cultural Challenges and Solutions
Challenges Solutions
Behavioral aversion Celebrate small wins
Disappointment and blame Acknowledge value in past practices
Polarized images Frequent and consistent communication
Ambivalent authority Measure progress regularly

Sentiment toward the newly combined company aligns with employee perceptions of
how forcibly separated employees are treated during the M&A event (Applebaum, 2000), further
supporting the need for an HR transition plan (Weber, 2015). Organizations can coordinate post
M&A interventions to boost morale and hasten adoption. Examples include promoting the values
of the newly combined company, modeling the new leadership competencies, and rewarding and
recognizing teams from both legacy organizations who succeed together (Applebaum, 2000;
Bijlsma-Frankema, 2001; Goodman, 2016). A comprehensive HR transition plan can help any
M&A-focused company prepare organizational interventions that support employees during
every stage of the M&A transformation process.
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework becomes the foundation of a study’s research methodology,
and this study applied the Burke-Litwin organizational performance and change (OP&C) model
to the research questions addressing ABC’s acquisition of XYZ (Burke & Litwin, 1992). The
premise of the OP&C model is that an organization’s external environment is the change model’s
primary input. The conceptual model for this study was altered to reflect an unexpected variable,
impacting ABC’s acquisition integration from March 2020 through the conclusion of the study in
December 2021: the COVID-19 pandemic.
28

The Burke-Litwin conceptual framework depicted in Figure 1 was adjusted to include the
COVID-19 variable in Figure 2. Additionally, Figure 2 included the HR transition plan and
M&A key concepts, both transactional inputs to the adapted model. Employee engagement, the
third key concept, encircled the model, as it was the study’s target metric and performance goal.
Twelve transformational and transactional factors served as throughputs in the OP&C model,
influencing the organization’s outputs, or product, in the form of individual and organizational
performance (Burke & Litwin, 1992; Stone, 2015). The transformational factors of the OP&C
model included organizational mission and strategy, leadership, and culture. Transactional
factors included structure, systems, management practices, and climate, with climate occurring at
the individual level and culture captured at the organizational level, also depicted in Figure 2.
According to Burke and Litwin (1992), the OP&C model predicted motivation, and motivation
predicted performance (Stone, 2015). Additionally, transformational change predicted
transactional change, so leadership, mission, strategy, and culture facilitated successful planned
change (Burke & Litwin, 1992; Stone, 2015).

29

Figure 2
Adaptation of the Burke-Litwin Causal Model of Organizational Performance

To assess an organization’s performance, the Organizational Performance Questionnaire
is a Likert scale assessment that rates a company’s 12 OP&C transformational and transactional
factors (Burke & Litwin, 1992; Olivier, 2018). Alternatively, Stone (2015) favored the Likert-
anchored Burke-Litwin Organizational Assessment Survey. Either tool could be used to diagnose
and measure the health of ABC’s postacquisition, newly combined company.
Summary
This chapter reviewed 40 years of social science research and business analysis on M&A
with a continuing trend of transformation failures. Researcher viewpoints were synthesized on
variables like learning, communication, culture, and the study’s key concepts of employee
30

engagement and HR transition planning. Although the study’s objective and primary concept
was employee engagement, M&A remained the common denominator and constant.
The literature review outlined conclusive and peer-reviewed research supporting the
positive correlation between: (a) HR planning and favorable M&A outcomes, (b) HR planning
and improved postacquisition employee engagement, and (c) employee engagement and
organizational productivity and profitability. These findings are revisited with the study’s
recommendations in Chapter 5, because the purpose of this study was to understand the
employee experience related to ABC’s acquisition of XYZ. Chapter 2 concluded with the OP&C
conceptual framework and its transformational and transactional influences. required for ABC to
reach a desired postacquisition target state. For an organization to identify and address
organizational gaps and achieve its target state, gaps must first be identified so the organization
can address them (Applebaum, 2000; Burke & Litwin, 1992). To gather this information,
researchers rely on data collection.

31

Chapter Three: Methodology
Chapter 3 defines the research methodology used to understand the effect of ABC’s
acquisition of XYZ on employee engagement. Data were collected from ABC and XYZ
employees regarding their perspectives before and after the 2019 acquisition. The methodology
included two qualitative instruments oriented toward the study’s key concepts of employee
engagement, M&A, and an HR transition plan. Burke and Litwin’s (1992) organizational
performance and change (OP&C) framework influenced the research questions used to develop
the protocol instruments and analyze their data (Burke & Litwin 1992).
Research Questions
The framework of the research methodology was designed around three research
questions, which are identified in Table 2.

32

Table 2
Data Sources
Research questions Qualitative
interview
Document
analysis
How engaged are employees from ABC and XYZ with the
newly combined ABC?
X X
What was the experience of employees from ABC and XYZ
during the acquisition process in the formation of the
newly combined ABC?
X X
In what ways did employees perceive leadership as
influencing their engagement following the acquisition?
X

Research Method
Data were collected from two qualitative research instruments, strengthening the
credibility and trustworthiness of the research results (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Ravitch & Carl,
2019). The two instruments involved qualitative interviews and document analysis (Creswell &
Creswell, 2008). Both referenced or were related to the 2019 acquisition event in some manner,
and each supported the other.
Data Collection, Instrumentation, and Analysis Plan
Data were collected through document analysis and interviews because both influenced
and contributed to an understanding of the study’s key concepts, research questions, and
conceptual framework. The research methodology used for this study was qualitative, a
transformative approach in which participants were asked open-ended questions to understand
how they experienced a significant life event (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Qualitative
interviews aligned well with the needs of this research because the intent of the study was to
understand how an organizational acquisition affected employees (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
The document and interview protocols were informed by the study’s three research questions and
33

referenced in Appendixes A, B, and C, respectively. Data analysis was inductive. The inductive
approach was appropriate because this researcher represented ABC in its acquisition of XYZ.
With inductive analysis, the results of a study generate the study’s theory in lieu of the researcher
seeking to prove or disprove a theory (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Method: Interviews
According to Maxwell (2013), the decisions a researcher makes about where and with
whom to conduct research can be as important as the research itself. Because ABC’s Chief
Executive Officer (CEO) supported the research study, research participants were active
employees and interviews were conducted virtually via Zoom during regular office hours. To
ensure the perspective captured was firsthand, the interview protocol consisted of 13 semi-
structured, open-ended interview questions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The questions were
predetermined but flexible, and I reordered them as needed, according to the flow of the
interview responses. This was an acceptable and preferred practice rather than following a
prescribed script (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The question structure worked well for interviewing
the small sample of employees who shared similar experiences but responded to them
differently. Each of the 13 questions were followed by probes, or questions, that solicited
additional detail regarding a participant’s response (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Participating Stakeholders
Sixteen participants were sought for the study: eight XYZ participants and eight legacy
ABC participants. The sampling and selection techniques used for the research were purposeful
sampling with criterion-based selection and random sampling (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Purposeful sampling assumes a researcher plans to explore a topic with a participant thoroughly,
based on specific participant criteria (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The three criteria for research
34

participant eligibility were: (a) active employment with the newly combined ABC, (b) work
location was the corporate “home” office, and (c) prior employment with XYZ or legacy ABC
for 6 months preacquisition and with the newly combined ABC for 6 months postacquisition.
Due to the closure of the XYZ corporate office on June 30, 2020 and subsequent XYZ
attrition in 2020 and 2021, only eight XYZ corporate employees met the study criteria. As such,
this subset of the acquired employee population was considered a unique purposeful sample
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I invited all eight individuals from the XYZ corporate office to
participate in the interviews, and all eight agreed. Conversely, 43 employees from the
preacquisition ABC met the same research criteria. I invited all 43 ABC employees to participate
in the study, and the first eight to affirmatively respond to the interview invitation became the
ABC participant representatives. The remaining 35 ABC employees were notified of non-
selection.
Instrumentation
Research questions help researchers determine what they are trying to understand through
their problem of practice (Maxwell, 2013). The three research questions for this study referenced
the transformational and transactional influences of the OP&C model before and after one
company’s acquisition of another (Burke & Litwin, 1992). The instrument used to deduce the
contributing transformational and transactional factors of the company’s postacquisition state
consisted of 13 interview questions. The instrument addressed one or more of the research
questions by exploring components of engagement, culture, leadership, and organizational
transformation (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
The 13 interview questions aligned with the study’s key concepts and the OP&C model
to understand the postacquisition perspective of the newly combined ABC’s employees.
35

Question 1 through Question 4 referenced engagement, Question 5 and Question 6 referenced
motivation, Question 7 and Question 8 referenced knowledge, and Question 4 and Question 9 to
Question 13 referenced organizational concepts.
Data Collection Procedures
I sought interviews with 16 employees. The individuals who met the study criteria were
identified based on their date of hire. The 51 employees who meet the criteria (eight from the
XYZ corporate office and 43 from the ABC corporate office) received an email invitation to
participate in the study. The study was described as academic research related to the union of
ABC and XYZ in December 2019. The interviewee role was defined as answering culture- and
engagement-related questions about ABC’s acquisition of XYZ in the months immediately
preceding and following the December 31, 2019, acquisition.
The email communication specified that all interview participants selected for an
interview would receive a $50 Amazon gift card for participation, regardless of full completion
of the interview. The communication also indicated the interview length of approximately 1
hour. Because the interviewees were company employees and their company email addresses
were available in a common email database, email was the medium used to communicate with
participants throughout data collection.
All eight employees from the XYZ corporate office were interviewed, as only eight
individuals in this stratified grouping met the study criteria. I randomly selected eight individuals
from among the ABC employees who volunteered to participate. In the email communication
when initially recruiting participants, I indicated that interview participants would be randomly
selected from the volunteers. Individuals not selected for interviews were notified of their non-
selection.
36

Logistically, the participant interviews were facilitated on the Zoom conference platform.
When the 16 interviewees were identified, they received the Institutional Review Board’s (IRB)
exempt studies form by email. I also solicited their availability to schedule the interview. Last,
they each received a written confidentiality commitment that referenced the intent to destroy the
Zoom recording and related documentation when no longer required for the study. The email
communication specified the delivery of the $50 Amazon gift card upon interview completion.
Before each interview began, I restated the confidentiality commitment and thanked the
interviewee for providing their perspective. Additionally, I inquired about the interviewee’s
comfort level. If at any time the interviewee relayed discomfort with the Zoom platform, I
offered to turn off the Zoom camera or recording feature. If the interviewee disliked Zoom, I
offered a recorded telephone conference as an alternative. As a last option, I offered hand-written
notetaking. The most important consideration during data collection was participant safety and
security. At the conclusion of each interview, I thanked the participant, restated the
confidentiality commitment, and reminded them that the $50 gift card would be emailed to them
at their work email address same day.
Data Analysis
Data analysis is a systemic and intentional method of organizing and representing
research data. It is tied to qualitative research and requires researchers to immerse themselves in
their data (Ravitch & Carl, 2019). Because data analysis is structured, coding was the analysis
method applied to the study’s interview feedback in three phases. The source of the data was the
feedback transcripts from the qualitative interviews (Gibbs, 2018).
The first phase of coding the interview feedback involved open coding. This coding
method is concept driven, with the researcher building a list of codes from the themes and ideas
37

in the data. Given the role of the data, this coding method is also considered data-driven coding.
When the open, data-driven coding method is complete, the text is reviewed reflectively, and the
data are categorized using a codebook (Gibbs, 2018). The second coding cycle was axial,
analytic, or comparative coding. The researcher achieves this second coding level by closely
examining the results of the open coding in the codebook and identifying patterns in the codes.
For this research study, I documented and compared the observed patterns in the codebook,
expanding the codebook. I looked for connections between codes that formed larger ideas or
themes (Gibbs, 2018).
The third coding cycle was the identification of themes and findings, and I incorporated
them into the codebook as well. In the margins of the codebook, I notated their thoughts from the
transcript review and interviews. The final stage of qualitative data analysis was comparative
analysis with the categorized findings from the codebook. The interviewee feedback was
hierarchical and categorized in the codebook. I developed comparisons with the data to generate
theories and findings in response to the study’s research questions.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
In a qualitative study, internal validity and reliability are defined differently than in
quantitative research (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). A quantitative study’s internal validity aligns
with credibility in qualitative research. Garces and Cogburn (2015) compared the credibility of a
study to the transferability of its findings. Reliability is linked to the consistency and
trustworthiness of qualitative research findings (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Improving either
internal validity or reliability involves a process called triangulation. With triangulation, a
research method is applied in duplicate or triplicate to converge on and strengthen an outcome. If
the results of the study are improved, credibility and trustworthiness are as well (Merriam &
38

Tisdell, 2016). Approaches to triangulation may include multiple methods, sources of data,
investigators, and theories.
I considered the small sample size and acknowledged that the acquisition already
occurred when considering triangulation strategies. The primary triangulation approach I used in
this study was the application of another research method, document analysis. If the themes from
data collection in the document analysis and interview analysis methods were consistent, the
internal validity and reliability of the overall methodology improved. Researcher and project
credibility may also be demonstrated with adequate engagement, or the depth of detail sought
through data collection (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The intent of the interview questions, the
probes, and the detail in the material used for the document analysis provided the adequate
engagement that I sought.
Method: Document and Artifact Analysis
In qualitative research, documents provide another source of data and are available in
many forms. Examples include official records, letters, newspapers, government documents,
diaries, and historical accounts (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The documents referenced in this
study were communication memorandums and frequently asked questions and answers shared
with employees in relation to ABC’s acquisition of XYZ. Other documents included talking
points to relay an impending site closure, mass job elimination, and critical employee events.
These documents aligned with the data collected in the semi-structured interviews. When
working with documents and artifacts, the researcher typically confirms the accuracy and
authenticity of the material. That step was not required with the documents analyzed in this
study, since I was the author of the material presented for review. I was the primary source of the
data and thus, had firsthand experience with the data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
39

Data Collection
Due to my role as Chief HR Officer (CHRO) in the legacy ABC between June 2019 and
June 2020, I authored all versions of all memos, talking points, calendars, and question-and-
answer documents related to ABC’s acquisition of XYZ in December 2019 and the ultimate
closure of its corporate office in June 2020. The documents were securely stored on a network
drive owned by the newly combined ABC that was accessible only by me and the company’s
information technology leaders. I had access to these documents in my capacity as the researcher
for this project with authorization from the company’s CEO and as CHRO for the legacy ABC
and the newly combined ABC. These documents were accessible only by me or the information
technology team, upon request.
Data Analysis
As a qualitative research method, document analysis is a systematic procedure for
reviewing documents to interpret and understand their purpose or solicit their meaning (Bowen,
2009). Like the method of data analysis for interviews, I applied coding to analyze the data
collected from the documentation related to ABC’s acquisition of XYZ. The coding occurred in
three stages with the use of a codebook, beginning with open coding. Open coding transitioned
to axial coding, in which themes and comparisons developed. I sought themes and patterns
between the communication materials and compared the data collected from the documentation
with the data collected from the interviews. When the data from the two collection methods
aligned, the study’s research methodology was further strengthened (Gibbs, 2018).
Ethics
Ethically, the most critical consideration of this study was the participant experience. In
this study, the participants were employees who witnessed an organizational transformation 2
40

years prior to their participant interviews. For the participant group that was acquired, revisiting
the experience produced strong reactions and emotions. To help participants understand the
respective roles in the interviews, I first addressed participant confidentiality (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). Confidentiality was ensured by assigning numbers instead of names to feedback
and storing the feedback in a secure location that only I could access. No participant results were
attributed to an individual but rather were generalized with other data in a collective summary.
To establish credibility, I articulated the intent to conduct the study safely and humanely.
I acknowledged that the acquisition of XYZ by ABC affected many and that both companies
were concerned about the well-being of their staff.
Last, I addressed consent, compensation, and expectations regarding participation. For
consent, I referenced the IRB exempt studies form and indicated that participation was voluntary,
and participants could leave at any time (Glesne, 2011). All participants received a $50 Amazon
gift card in acknowledgement of their contribution, whether they completed the session or not.
All 16 participants started and finished their interview sessions. The review of expectations
included an overview of the interview medium, Zoom, its recording feature, and the expected
length of the interview: up to but not more than 1 hour. I committed to destroying all recordings
and documents related to the research after the research concluded and the dissertation was
approved. At that time, I agreed to send all participants an electronic copy of the dissertation.

41

Chapter Four: Findings
The purpose of this inductive, qualitative research study was to explore whether the
inclusion of a Human Resource (HR) transition plan in an organizational acquisition improved
employee engagement through the transformational change initiative. Since the intent of the
study was to understand how employees responded to the acquisition, the research methodology
involved qualitative interviews and document analysis. By using two independent research
instruments, the study reinforced the credibility and trustworthiness of the research results
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Ravitch & Carl, 2019). To ensure that the data represented first-hand
participant perspectives, the interview protocol consisted of 13 semi-structured, open-ended
interview questions. The questions were flexibly applied to ensure the interviews were confined
to one-hour and supported the natural flow of the participant responses.
The study’s three, key concepts were employee engagement, mergers, and acquisitions
(M&A), and an HR transition plan. Employee engagement was defined as a feeling that inspires
employees to perform in the best interest of their organization, achieving organizational goals
like performance, quality, service, or profit (Aon Hewitt, 2013; Llewellyn-Neikam, 2017). An
HR transition plan was defined as the activities, responsibilities, and communications that
support employees during an organizational transformation. The acquisition side of (M&A) was
defined as a business transaction that occurs when one organization buys or acquires another
(Llewellyn-Neikam, 2017). The problem of practice for the study incorporated these three key
concepts: Without an HR transition plan supporting an acquisition event, learning and
communication needs could be lost in the transition chaos, creating employee engagement and
performance gaps (Davies et al., 2011).
42

Postacquisition data were collected from ABC and XYZ participants to determine their
engagement levels before and after the December 31, 2019, transition. Because M&A
transformations facilitated changes in the organization’s state, the Burke-Litwin organizational
performance and change (OP&C) model was an appropriate conceptual framework to support the
study and inform its research questions (Burke-Litwin, 1992). Three research questions were
used to design the interview and document analysis protocols:
1. How engaged are employees from ABC and XYZ with the newly combined ABC?
2. What was the experience of employees from ABC and XYZ during the acquisition
process in the formation of the newly combined ABC Company?
3. In what ways did employees perceive leadership as influencing their engagement
following the acquisition?
For data collection, the qualitative interviews preceded document analysis, because
interview participants cited communications as an employee engagement deterrent. Since the
document analysis involved employee communication materials, the interviews were conducted
first, so the document findings could be compared to the interview findings for common themes.
Additionally, the document analysis offered secondary stakeholder insight into organizational
mission and management practices that may have subliminally influenced the communications’
messaging. The secondary stakeholders for these two, transformation factors were the leaders
and private equity owners (shareholders) of the newly combined ABC Company (Burke &
Litwin, 1992).

43

Interview Participants
Sixteen participants were interviewed: eight XYZ employees and eight, legacy ABC
employees. The sampling and selection techniques were purposeful sampling with criterion-
based selection and random sampling (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The three required participant
criteria were: (a) active employment with the newly combined ABC Company at the time of
interview, (b) the participant work location at the time of acquisition was the legacy corporate
office, and (c) prior employment with XYZ or ABC was 6 months before and 6 months after the
acquisition event. Only eight employees from the XYZ corporate office met the study criteria, so
they comprised a unique purposeful sample (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). All eight were invited to
interview, and all eight accepted. Forty-three employees from the preacquisition, corporate ABC
met the same research criteria, and the first eight to respond to the interview invitation became
the ABC participant representatives. Table 3 lists the ABC and XYZ interview participants by
legacy organization, leadership status (manager or non-manager), and their identifier codes for
the study.

44

Table 3
Interview Participants from Acquiring (ABC) and Acquired (XYZ) Companies
Legacy
company
Manager or
non-manager
Identifier
code
ABC Manager ABC03
ABC Manager ABC04
ABC Non-manager ABC01
ABC Manager ABC08
ABC Manager ABC05
ABC Non-manager ABC02
ABC Non-manager ABC07
ABC Manager ABC06
XYZ Non-manager XYZ02
XYZ Non-manager XYZ03
XYZ Non-manager XYZ06
XYZ Non-manager XYZ07
XYZ Manager XYZ05
XYZ Non-manager XYZ04
XYZ Manager XYZ01
XYZ Manager XYZ08

For the purposes of this study, responses to interview questions were coded as either
favorable or unfavorable. When more than 50% of participants responded positively to an
interview question, the response was coded as favorable. An example of a favorable interview
response was, “I was engaged as an employee, and we were a very close as a department.”
Conversely, if more than 50% of participants responded negatively to an interview question, the
response was coded as unfavorable. “When we learned we were being let go in 60 days, I was
very dissatisfied and disgruntled,” was an example of an unfavorable interview response. When
participants did not provide an opinion in or provided opposing opinions to the same interview
question, the response was coded as neutral. “I felt good, because of my role at ABC, and I was
stressed because of the work involved in the acquisition itself,” was coded as a neutral, because it
45

included opposing viewpoints. “No, because I did not know anything about ABC
preacquisition,” was also coded as neutral, because it did not include an opinion.
Documents
Eight documents comprised the document analysis protocol. I drafted all documentation
in my former role as ABC’s Chief Human Resources Officer (CHRO). All members of the ABC
and XYZ Executive Leadership Team (ELT) had an opportunity to review and provide feedback
on this documentation before it was distributed or used. The documents were classified as public
or private, internal for the purposes of the protocol. Both the legacy ABC Interim CEO at the
time of the acquisition and CEO at the time of data collection authorized this research study,
including interviewing employees as research participants and referencing internal
communications as part of document analysis.
Three public communications addressed company employees in memo format. Two of
these memos were directed to XYZ employees exclusively since they were the party most
affected by the acquisition. One of the three communications was addressed to both ABC and
XYZ employees. The timing of the distribution of the three public communications are
referenced in Figure 3. Five private, internal documents supported the closure of the XYZ
corporate office.

46

Figure 3

Timeline of Acquisition Events

Public Communications and Announcements
The first public announcement was issued in September 2019 to XYZ employees only.
The XYZ CEO issued the memo which indicated that the two companies would “merge” 90 to
120 days later. The word “acquisition” was not used. The timeline of the distribution of the
public communications and other acquisition-related events is depicted in Figure 3.
The second public communication was issued to only XYZ employees in December 2019
by the ABC and XYZ HR Teams. The memo addressed XYZ’s transition to the ABC time and
attendance system and benefits enrollment platform during the month of December 2019. This
communication was required to ensure XYZ hourly employees could enter time on January 1,
2020. The memo was also the first communication addressing 2020 open enrollment for
healthcare benefits that was directed to XYZ employees. Meetings were subsequently offered to
47

provide detail on benefit offering. This communication was a critical transition step since it
launched time and attendance training and open enrollment benefit webinars for XYZ.
The third announcement was issued to all ABC and XYZ employees from the ABC and
XYZ leadership teams on January 2, 2020, to formally announce the union of ABC and XYZ
Companies on December 31, 2019. The tone of the memo was celebratory, promoting the
strength of the combined entities in the consumer finance marketplace. This was the third and
final employee communication related to the XYZ acquisition, other than individualized
severance agreements. All other documents were private, internal communication that were used
to prepare for the XYZ corporate office closure.
Private, Internal Communications
The first internal communication was a calendar of events for April 2020, beginning with
the communication for April 3, 2020, regarding the closure of the XYZ corporate office. Other
key dates on the calendar included COBRA webinars and individual severance meetings. The
calendar was used only by those hosting meetings, conducting webinars, or answering severance
questions.
The second internal document included the talking points for the XYZ CEO when they
addressed the approximately 40 impacted XYZ employees regarding their corporate office
closure on April 3, 2020. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, this meeting was held via
conference call. The bulleted talking points that were prepared for the meeting addressed the
business decision for the site closure. The talking points also indicated that the Company planned
to provide notice of 60-days and severance support for each employee, since the closure would
not occur until June 30, 2020. The XYZ CEO mentioned that additional meetings would be held
48

the next week to share severance details and conduct COBRA webinars. The site closure
announcement covered these two points only. It was brief and lasted approximately five minutes.
The remaining internal documents were designed to help leaders respond to questions
from XYZ employees related to the site closure. The first set of questions and answers were for
XYZ affected employees who were active on or after the April 3, 2020, notification. Specifics
about severance were provided, assuming the leaders would require that level of detail.
Additionally, the document included a week-by-week schedule of HR support that XYZ
employees would receive until the June 30, 2020, site closure. The second set of questions and
answers were responses to common questions raised during other reduction-in-force initiatives.
Research Question 1: How Engaged are Employees from ABC and XYZ Companies with
the Newly Combined ABC Company?
Only two of eight, or 25%, of ABC participants provided favorable responses when asked
about their preacquisition, organizational perceptions. Six of eight, or 75%, of ABC participants
also shared concerns about the impending acquisition. Conversely, preacquisition engagement at
the legacy ABC Company was surprisingly high at 75%, considering these other statistics. As
additional detail was procured through the interview probes, the legacy ABC employees relayed
reticence about the workload required to integrate the two companies. Their specific feedback
informed the first theme for Research Question 1.
Theme 1: Some ABC Employees Were Overwhelmed by the Acquisition Integration Work
Despite being employed by the acquiring entity, ABC interview participants offered
mixed, preacquisition feedback. Uncertainty prevailed, with some ABC participants experiencing
tense XYZ interactions and others concerned about their future workload. ABC employees had
not received specific, departmental communication about the integration. As a result, ABC
49

participants wondered if their roles would change and how they would support the concurrent
operations of two companies.
Interview Findings
When asked about ABC Company before the acquisition, Participant ABC06 made one of
two favorable statements (25%): “I actually felt good to be working at a company that was doing
well enough to acquire another.” Participant ABC04 provided one of the two (25%) opposing
views: “I did not realize what an impact [the acquisition] would have on our department,” they
said. “We did not receive any kind of notice. We were required to double [our] work, because of
the acquisition.” The remaining four of eight (50%) ABC participants provided more neutral
responses. Two of the four (25%) acknowledged how the acquisition could benefit employees
and the Company, but they also expressed growing worry. Specifically, ABC03 mentioned, “I
felt good, because of my role at ABC, but I was stressed because of the work involved in the
acquisition itself.” Participant ABC01 shared another neutral viewpoint: “Overall I knew ABC
was doing well, and there was room to grow, but I knew that a lot needed to happen to get where
we needed to.”
ABC participant responses were mostly favorable to the interview question regarding
preacquisition engagement. Six of eight (75%) of ABC employees indicated favorable
engagement toward ABC Company. For example, ABC05 stated emphatically, “On a scale of 1-
10, with 10 being highest, I was an 8.” ABC01 offered “I definitely felt engaged,” and ABC04
said that their team was, “Very close as a department.” Both ABC07 and ABC08 used the word
“happy” to describe their feelings toward ABC, with ABC08 adding, “I love this job!”.
When the ABC participants were asked whether any fears were introduced with the
acquisition announcement, seven of eight (88%) ABC employees relayed their concerns. ABC05
50

wondered, “Would we have to lay anyone off? How would my team be impacted?” This
employee did not feel that leadership adequately addressed or answered either question. They
were not alone. Participant ABC03 said, “We were not in a position that we had executive
management in place to take on the acquisition.” The discomfort was shared by ABC01 who
indicated, “ABC Company employees did not seem to feel confident,” and “I did not know what
to expect, so…I was nervous.” The specifics that these participants shared regarding their
concern included unfamiliarity with the work they were being asked to do. Participant ABC08
said, “It quickly became keeping two loan systems and supporting two companies’ networks,
then overnight, we were told we had to support each other’s.”
ABC participants also expressed worry that appropriate acquisition resources were
lacking, and the work volume remained challenging to complete. One comment captured this
sentiment well:
I felt overwhelmed. There were so many things that had to be done and deadlines of
when they had to be done. We had to run on dual systems for a while. It did not seem like
upper management took that into consideration.
Another interview question inquired about the observed interactions between ABC and
XYZ employees, postacquisition. According to three of the eight (38%) ABC participants, the
success of their first exchanges with XYZ teammates was mixed, complicating the work
transition and completion. Participant ABC05 said the work environment was: “tense with a
focus on process over people. It felt strained with people frustrated, scared, and even rude. It
wasn’t great.” Participant ABC03 made the same observation regarding the management ranks:
“In the first 3 to 4 months, there seemed to be tension within executive leadership, and they
seemed to be operating in different worlds.” Alternatively, three of eight (38%) ABC participants
51

offered favorable perceptions of their XYZ interactions, whereas 25% provided a neutral
response. Participant ABC01 suggested that their team was coming together: “On our team, it
seemed like we got to know them well, because we had weekly meetings and they came to
town.”
Document Findings
The first three documents of the document analysis protocol aligned with the first three
questions of the interview protocol. The documents and questions referenced the introduction of
ABC Company and XYZ Company to each other and the announcement of the impending
acquisition. However, ABC Company employees only received the last of the three
communication documents, whereas XYZ Company received all three. The joint memo
announced the successful December 31, 2019, transition to formalize the acquisition event, and it
was issued on January 2, 2020. Operationally, the memo indicated that both organizations would
continue running concurrently while leveraging economies of scale like common payroll systems
and technological infrastructure. There was no mention of the forthcoming integration or
transition work. None of the documents in the document analysis protocol addressed the
upcoming project integration work that the ABC employees questioned in their interviews.
Summary
All eight ABC participants expressed preacquisition fears, and seven of eight (88%)
participants questioned the looming integration in some way. They said they did not have the
resources or the knowledge base to satisfactorily consolidate the business operations of ABC and
XYZ. Four of eight (50%) participants offered neutral responses when asked how they felt about
their preacquisition organization, two (25%) offered favorable remarks, and two (25%) shared
unfavorable remarks. In their response to Question 3b, Participant ABC02 said, “[The] culture
52

was still in development [preacquisition] and lacking. There was no real unity. Every unit
seemed to be operating on its own, and the culture was not there.”
ABC participants had varied experiences with their XYZ teammates. They reported an
equal number of favorable, unfavorable, and neutral interactions in the first months following the
acquisition. From a communications perspective, ABC employees were the recipients of one
public communication only: the January 2, 2020 announcement of the successful, legal
acquisition on December 31, 2019. This communication did not reference integration work nor
did any future communication. As a result, ABC participant feedback revealed strong,
integration concerns. Table 4 reflects a trend of favorable and unfavorable responses to four
identical interview questions asked of ABC and XYZ participants in support of Research
Question 1. Three questions referenced the preacquisition timeframe, and one question addressed
the postacquisition period. Directionally, the interview participants from ABC and XYZ felt
similarly, regardless of acquisition status.

53

Table 4
Pattern of ABC and XYZ Responses to Four Identical Interview Questions

Theme 2: XYZ Employees Were Not Fully Engaged With the Newly Combined Company
XYZ participants were asked about their feelings toward XYZ Company, after the
acquisition announcement but before the acquisition itself. Three of eight (38%) participants felt
loyalty towards XYZ, whereas three of eight (38%) shared their skepticism toward ABC and
focused on the uncertainty of the transition. Two of eight (25%) XYZ participants expressed
curiosity regarding the opportunities that the change presented.
When the questioning was specific to XYZ’s preacquisition engagement, the eight
participants provided almost unanimously favorable responses. All but one XYZ participant cited
engagement, and the outlier participant noted XYZ’s slow growth. Half of the XYZ participants
expressed trepidation and uncertainty about the upcoming acquisition. Because of the messaging
in the preacquisition public communications, at least two of eight (25%) XYZ participants found
comfort in the upcoming transition. Like the ABC participants, the XYZ participants experienced
mixed postacquisition interactions with their new teammates.
ABC
% favorable
(unfavorable)
XYZ
% favorable
(unfavorable)

25 38
(88) (50)
75 88

(38) (38)

54

Interview Findings
When asked about their feelings toward their legacy organization, three of eight (38%)
XYZ participants spoke emphatically about their devotion to XYZ and its culture. “I loved it,”
said XYZ07, “I felt like I worked for a great company. It felt like a family. I was engaged and
passionate.” XYZ04 shared the sentiment: “I felt strongly about XYZ. We had respect. I felt
comfortable knowing I always knew where to go.” Three of eight (38%) XYZ participants were
already focused on the future and relayed concerns about the upcoming acquisition. Participant
XYZ02 said, “I felt a little nervous and was waiting to hear more [about the ABC acquisition].”
Participant XYZ06 said, “I thought, ‘What is in it for us? For me?’ We were not given that level
of detail.’” The last points of view were shared by two XYZ participants who liked working at
XYZ but had observed a lack of growth or upward mobility. Participant XYZ05 expressed their
optimism: “XYZ was not growing, and I felt like ABC and their owners probably had the capital
to help us do so.” Participant XYZ03 added, “I liked working there [at XYZ], but there was no
room for growth. The opportunities were not there, and there was no turnover at corporate
office.”
The eight XYZ interview participants reported almost universal engagement when asked
about preacquisition engagement at XYZ. Seven of the eight (88%) participants responded
favorably to the question. Participant XYZ05 represented the remaining 13% and offered, “We
[XYZ] were not moving to the next level and did not have the resources to move forward.” The
feedback was favorable otherwise. “I absolutely loved my job with XYZ,” said Participant
XYZ04. Participant XYZ06 added, “I love my job…I felt welcomed.” Participant XYZ02
offered, “I was very comfortable at XYZ and felt we were very team-driven.”
55

When asked what fears were introduced by the acquisition announcement, four (50%) of
the XYZ interview participants indicated that they feared for their legacy company’s future.
Participant XYZ04 asked, “How am I going to bounce back from this, if my position is
eliminated?” Participant XYZ01 shared, “I feared for the corporate office, knowing there could
not be two home offices.” Two (25%) of the eight XYZ participants were optimistic about the
acquisition opportunity, due to the public communications issued by ABC and XYZ leadership:
“None [fears], out of the gate,” said Participant XYZ02, “because I remember the email and the
messaging was favorable.” Participant XYZ03 reinforced this statement: “They [leadership]
were reassuring that BAU [business as usual] and [the] Home Office is staying put.” The
remaining two XYZ employees had questions that were neutral in nature.
XYZ participants had varied responses to the interview question about postacquisition
interactions with their ABC teammates. Overall, three of eight (38%) responses were clearly
unfavorable. Participant XYZ04 said, "the people being told they were being let go had bad
attitudes and mistrust.” Participant XYZ06 said the resistance was coming from ABC Company:
“I did not feel welcomed by 99% of the ABC team members. They acted like we were learning
their systems to take their jobs.” Three of eight (38%) XYZ participants had favorable
observations, and two of eight (25%) participants offered more neutral perspectives. For
example, Participant XYZ02 saw progress: “At first, there was hesitance between both. Both
[XYZ and ABC] held back. Then everyone worked well together.” Participant XYZ07 had a
good experience from the start: “It was favorable. There was miscommunication from lack of
messaging, but the people from ABC were welcoming. There was no animosity and no power
plays.” The progression observed by these last two participants represented the first shift toward
a one-company mindset from employees on both sides of the newly combined company.
56

Document Findings
Synergies were present between the first public communication and the first three
interview protocol questions. Each addressed ABC’s and XYZ’s initial introduction to the other.
Additionally, XYZ participants specifically referenced the memo in their responses to Question
1a: What fears, if any, were introduced by the acquisition announcement? Two XYZ participants
indicated that the messaging had eased their fears about the impending acquisition. Participant
XYZ03 said, “[Leadership] were reassuring that BAU and [the] home office is staying put,”
Participant XYZ02 offered: “None [fears], out of the gate, because I remember the email and the
messaging was favorable.” The use of the expression BAU may have led another participant to
conclude that job security was assured. Participant XYZ04 said, “Keeping in mind that the
message was-at first status quo-everyone is keeping their jobs.”
Summary
Participant feedback from the first three interview questions suggested that XYZ
employees were not fully engaged with the newly combined ABC Company (see Table 4). First,
the XYZ participants indicated almost universal engagement with the legacy XYZ Company.
Second, 75% of these participants expressed either loyalty toward XYZ or trepidation regarding
the future, when asked about their initial feelings after the official acquisition announcement.
Half of the XYZ participants shared specific fears regarding the impending acquisition, and their
feedback was mixed on early interactions with their ABC counterparts. Last, document findings
provided context to mitigated fears expressed in participant interviews that were later realized.
The impact of actualized worry on XYZ’s trust and engagement toward the newly combined
ABC Company resonated throughout the interview protocol. Participant XYZ02’s response to
57

Question 3, How would you describe your postacquisition engagement, if any, at the newly
combined ABC Company, seemed to capture the XYZ interview participants’ unease:
We were aware of the acquisition, and things were moving along. Then we were all at
home because of COVID. Then on a Friday afternoon, we were told that the corporate
office was being closed and all of the jobs were being eliminated. At that point, I went
from no concerns to “Oh my gosh” that lasted a couple of weeks. We were told if we
stayed on to certain dates, we would be given severance. Things were up in the air for a
couple of weeks, and I felt there could be better communication. Then there were rumors
of meetings. Then I was offered [a] job to stay on. I accepted the position. It was very up
in the air there for a few more weeks. Once I knew I had a job again, I thought the
communication was OK. I had been through an acquisition like that before where one
home office was moved to another. I think more questions should have been asked. ABC
could have prevented a lot of work if they had asked more questions…. even now, 2
years later. A lot of people know ABC’s program or XYZ’s program but not both.
Summary of Research Question 1 Findings
Feedback from ABC and XYZ interview participants was directionally similar on
preacquisition feelings, fears, and employee engagement at their legacy organizations. Regarding
their impressions of postacquisition, inter-company, employee interactions, the ABC and XYZ
interview participants’ perceptions were identically mixed. The degree to which ABC and XYZ
interview participants described engagement at the newly combined ABC Company varied by
organization. For ABC participants, interview questions on preacquisition and early
postacquisition engagement and culture yielded concerns about resources and work completion.
For XYZ participants, engagement at the newly combined company lacked foundation. Initially,
58

XYZ participants expressed concern for their futures from feelings of uncertainty and fears of the
unknown. Ultimately, the substantiation of unfulfilled commitments from joint leadership
unfavorably affected trust and engagement with the newly combined ABC Company.
Research Question 2: What Was the Experience of Employees From ABC and XYZ
Companies Through the Acquisition Process in the Formation of the Newly Combined
Company?
The ABC and XYZ interview participants shared individual experiences from the
different stages of the acquisition integration process. During the interviews, seven of eight
(88%) ABC participants were vocal about poor communications and inadequate integration
planning to support postacquisition business demands. Six of eight (75%) XYZ participants cited
communications as their most frequent preacquisition and postacquisition challenge.
Specifically, each of the six XYZ participants relayed at least one unfavorable communications
experience between the distribution of the first public memo and the closure of the XYZ
corporate office on June 30, 2020. Additionally, like their ABC counterparts, half of the XYZ
participants noted integration planning as a gap in the acquisition process. These combined
employee experiences informed the third and fourth themes of the second research question.
Theme 3: Most ABC Participants Indicated that M&A Communications or Integration
Planning were Lacking
Seven of eight (88%) ABC participants expressed at least one concern about acquisition-
related communications or integration planning in the interview analysis. Integration planning
issues included sufficient Full Time Equivalent (FTE) employee and Information Technology
(IT) resources to fulfill the work requirements at the newly combined company. ABC
59

participants offered this feedback through their responses to interview questions, including
suggestions to improve future M&A integrations.
Interview Findings
ABC participants were asked whether company communication had “mitigated their
concerns” about the upcoming acquisition. The time component of this interview probe was
assumed to precede the December 2019 acquisition, based on the use of the word “upcoming”.
Two of eight (25%) ABC interview participants provided favorable responses, one of eight
(13%) an unfavorable response, and five of eight (63%) had neutral responses. The unfavorable
respondent, Participant ABC02, said:
It didn’t…it was abrupt, and there was not a lot of follow-through about the acquisition. It
felt like we were kept in the dark and communicated to when needed about the acquisition.
As far as the team goes, we knew our roles but not about the acquisition and what to expect
for the company.
Participant ABC07, a neutral respondent, shared a different experience: “I do not really
remember being reassured in any way.” Participant ABC03, also a neutral respondent, added: “It
felt like change management on the ABC side was handled well, but I do not know how it felt on
the XYZ side.”
ABC participants were forthcoming with various communications recommendations
when asked how they would improve future M&A initiatives. Three of eight (38%) ABC
participants offered communications suggestions, and four of eight (50%) shared a combination
of recommendations for communications and integration planning, including training ideas. For
example, Participant ABC05 said:
60

Communicate early and often. Even if the news is not positive, get it out there. If you
have to pay more to keep the expertise around, do it. It will make the transition
experience better for all. Be up front and honest.
Participant ABC01 focused on communications only and advised: “Openly communicate.
Be honest and do not change the message on the employees.” Participant ABC06 agreed and
supported both communications and integration planning: “More communications from both the
acquiring and acquired companies, like what are the plans for?”. In terms of integration planning
and ensuring that the acquisition had the necessary work resources, Participant ABC04 offered,
“Definitely have the infrastructure in place to merge two systems quickly and do not allow the
knowledge base to leave before it is transferred. Preparation. Training for new processes.
Staffing. All three are priorities.” Participant ABC03 shared a similar thought: “Do more
prework to prepare for taking on the added workload. [The acquisition] would have gone more
smoothly with a project plan.” Only one participant of eight (13%) opted not to provide a
response to the interview question. Table 5 presents interview participants’ recommendations to
the newly combined ABC Company for future acquisitions.

61

Table 5
Participant Responses to Acquisition Impact: Interview Protocol Questions 12d
Recommendation: learn (knowledge/expertise)
XYZ04 I know the message is getting acquired and some people may lose jobs, so right out
of the gate, say ‘here are your resources.’

Participant
Q12d: What recommendations do you have
for future acquisition events?
Recommendation: communicate
ABC01 Openly communicate. Be honest and do not change the message on the
employees.
ABC02 Maybe offer Q&A sessions for employees to talk instead of communicating
through emails. Also ask the other company the best way to approach them, so
they can share their preferred communications styles.
ABC07 Give the employees more information not just about the other company but what
their culture is. That is more important that how much money they are making,
but the culture is the experience. Many employees are insulated to everything
beyond the culture. The 3% bonus was awesome. But it’s the everyday stuff that
matters.
XYZ03 The problem of closing Home Office with business-as-usual messaging is that you
need to provide some type of communication in advance. Just knowing the
possibility that a site could close is helpful. Do not drop a bomb on employees.
COVID made it worse. I was scared.
XYZ08 Be more open with employees. They are not dumb, and they see the writing on the
walls. Find the balance. Openness and candor retain trust.
XYZ05 Get M&A expertise to help deliver on the project. It didn’t seem like we had one
person engaged and in charge for ABC and XYZ. If it was there, it wasn’t good.
Recommendation (multiple): communicate, plan, learn
ABC03 Do more prework to prepare for taking on the added workload. [The transition]
would have gone more smoothly with a project plan.
ABC04 Definitely have the infrastructure in place to merge two systems quickly. Do not
allow your knowledge base to leave before [the knowledge] is transferred.
Preparation. Training for new processes. Staffing. All three are priorities
ABC05 Communicate early and often. Even if the news is not positive, get it out there. If
you have to pay more to keep the expertise around, do it. It will make the
transition experience better for all. Be up front and honest.
ABC06 More communication from both the acquiring and acquired companies, like what are
the plans for?
XYZ02 The biggest thing is that the ABC acquisition and losing Home Office and all of the
legacy functions…the communications and emails are critical. If you’re going
to get rid of the legacy team, make sure you have the knowledge that goes with
it.
62

Recommendation (multiple): communicate, plan, learn
XYZ06 You need transparency and to know what you are getting into. Train
your people before you let the acquired knowledge go. Training and
communication should be the number one priority.
Recommendation: other
ABC08 I do not have any suggestions.
XYZ01 When you can find acquisitions outside of your footprint and expand
into new territories. Therefore, this model is working well, because
there is a true expansion of opportunity, and it is showing.
XYZ07 Overall, good company, aside from postacquisition and experience with
Director of Recovery, I would recommend the company.

Last, the ABC participants responded to an interview probe on their perceptions

of the culture developing at the newly combined company. Interestingly, no (0%) ABC
participants mentioned communications or integration planning in their responses to this
question. Five of eight (63%) participants indicated that the culture was developing favorably,
whereas one of eight (13%) participants offered an unfavorable response, and one of eight (25%)
participants provided a neutral response. These same ABC employees were asked whether they
felt differently about the new ABC Company’s culture during the participant interviews in
February 2021, 2 years postacquisition. The two, participants (25%) with unfavorable responses
for Question 3c retained their unfavorable responses for Question 3d. Participant ABC08 said,
“It just seems like everyone is busier and more stressed than 2 years ago.” Participant ABC07
agreed: “The [Company’s] growth has dumped so much work on our team that I do not know
how it can get done. I feel a whole lot of anxiety now.” Two of the favorable respondents (25%)
to Question 3c noted communications improvements when answering Question 3d. Participant
ABC05 indicated, “Yes, culture improved for the better. Confusion from communication declined
and leadership got much stronger. Role clarity was stronger, and work-life balance felt better.”
63

Participant ABC01 offered a reflective response: “Now that we are going through an acquisition on
the other side, I can see how the lack of communication from the beginning could impact XYZ and
create worry; I can appreciate the XYZ perspective more.” Three of the remaining four ABC
participants shared comments related to the newly combined ABC Company’s improved unity since
the 2019 acquisition. Participant ABC03 shared:
In 2021, the culture was much more unified. Operations was much better. We rolled out
one unified incentive plan. We measured people the same way. We reported as one
company. We aligned operations; There was joint ownership. We rebranded as XYZ’s
name.
Participant ABC02 said, “It has continued to grow and has pushed us to grow. New leadership
has continued to unify us into one company.” Last, ABC06 added, “We changed our name to
XYZ, and we were feeling unified, even though our loan products were different.” Table 6
reflects interview participants’ perceptions of the postacquisition, developing culture at the
newly combined company.

64

Table 6
Question 3c: Culture Developing at the Newly Combined ABC Company
ABC participant feedback XYZ participant feedback
Favorable feedback on developing culture
63% favorable 38% favorable
Once the XYZ corporate office closed, it
felt like we were all on the same page
finally and back to focusing on people
over process versus the opposite. That is
when the culture started to come
together-after the closure (ABC05).
It took a couple of months to mesh, and
there was uncertainty on both sides.
It happened through discussion and
the use of “we” versus “them.”
Company communication attempted
to address the Company as one. The
attempt was there out of the gate
(XYZ02).
There was definitely a push for an opening
and welcoming type of culture where we
all work together for a goal with the
same systems and one company culture
(ABC02).
It seemed like our cultures were always
kind of similar anyway. It was nice
that they looked at the mission
statement from XYZ…they were
trying to take the best of both
companies and not pushing all of
ABC onto XYZ (XYZ03).
It is definitely different. The things that
have been accomplished are very
positive. The new CEO, COO, CFO all
brought positive change (ABC04).
They were trying to make it a positive,
united culture and not separated by
legacy alignments (XYZ07).
It felt like it improved after the acquisition,
because we started looking at our
processes and making an attempt to
merge and improve processes-bringing
unity to the Company (ABC06).

When quarterly 1-1s started as part of HO
engagement initiative, that felt good.
The CEO initiative started to build
culture (ABCC01).

Unfavorable feedback on developing culture

13% favorable x% unfavorable
It was obvious that we were no longer going
to be a regional organization, and people
from the region were bothered. Some
legacy ABC employees seemed bothered
and at a loss divided (ABC07).

Neutral feedback on developing culture
25% neutral 50% neutral
Initially, it was very separate. the entire first
year, [XYZ] was a separate entity
Really, nothing until shortly after the
announcement about Home Office.
65

ABC participant feedback XYZ participant feedback
operationally. From a corporate
perspective, we were merging in 2020,
but Operations is 90% of Company
(ABC03).
Maybe, one-on-one culture
development. And relationships. I did
not get a full feel of culture. I did not
visit ABC Home Office until after the
pandemic. I did not get a full feel of
culture of the organization until early
fall/late summer of 2020. ABC is
more progressive as far as HR
policies/practices are concerned
(XYZ08).
It did not seem to change that much to me,
and we were in the height of the
pandemic at the time, so it was hard to
judge what was really going on…
(ABC08).
I feel it’s better. Legacy XYZ preached
their mission and values, even if to
our detriment, we knew what our
mission and foundation was. The
operations seemed very siloed
(XYZ05).

Not really…it seemed like we were
maintaining leadership [XYZ CEO]
and that they might rise to top
(XYZ04).
I was not assessing the culture in the
beginning; I was assessing the
professionalism of the people ABC
had representing them (XYZ06).

Document Findings
Only one public communication document was addressed to both the ABC and XYZ
employee populations. On January 2, 2020, the memo acknowledging the December 31, 2019,
transaction that legally joined the two organizations was distributed to both ABC and XYZ
Company employees. Although ABC interview participants used the word communication 25
times in their collective interview responses, the word was used to reference communications
ineffectiveness, observed improvements, or recommendations for future acquisitions. None of
the interview feedback included references to specific, public, Company communications. As a
66

result, the document analysis did not contribute to the interview findings for ABC participants
for Theme 3 of Research Question 2.
Summary
The ABC participants revealed two primary concerns as they responded to 13 interview
questions about preacquisition and postacquisition engagement at the newly combined company:
communications and integration planning, including the necessary FTE and IT resources to meet
work demands in the postacquisition work environment. To resolve similar gaps in future M&A
initiatives, the ABC participants offered suggestions in their response to Question 12d (see Table
5). Only one (13%) ABC participant opted not to provide feedback. Three of eight (38%)
participants provided communication improvement ideas only. Four of eight (50%) participants
recommended a combination of communication and integration planning solutions, including
resource management suggestions. Last, ABC participants answered questions about the
developing culture at the postacquisition company in the months after December 2019 and 2
years later. Without solicitation or prompting on the kinds of changes that occurred in that
period, two of eight (25%) ABC participants discussed communications improvements and three
of eight (38%) different participants indicated unity improvements in the newly combined ABC
Company during that period.
Theme 4: Most XYZ Participants Expressed Dissatisfaction with Acquisition
Communications
On April 3, 2020, 6 months after the first public communication announcing the
acquisition, the XYZ CEO verbally communicated the expected closure of the XYZ corporate
office, scheduled for June 30, 2020. The meeting was brief, addressing only the closure business
decision and acknowledging severance and COBRA benefits meetings the following week.
67

Although the closure decision and the June 30 closure date were finalized months prior, the
COVID-19 pandemic had unexpectedly forced the closure of the two corporate offices and all
415 branches across 11 states only 2 weeks prior. By April 3, 2020, infection rates were rising,
so there was no projected return-to-work date at that time. Unfortunately, environmental
circumstances required that the XYZ CEO’s closure notification be conducted via conference
call versus in-person as was the original intention.
Interview Findings
From their first meetings and interactions, the XYZ participants’ sentiment towards ABC
was mixed. In response to the second probe of the first interview question, three of eight (38%)
XYZ participants cited favorable impressions of ABC Company, two of eight (25%) had
unfavorable views, and three of eight (38%) had neutral impressions. Participant XYZ02, who
responded favorably, noted that ABC representatives visited XYZ’s corporate office. “It was an
introductory meeting,” they said. “Everyone was polite and nice and genuine. The news was
good, and it was exciting.” Participant XYZ07 was also supportive: “They seemed like they had
better technology and newer ways of doing things. They seemed motivating and positive…[The]
overall changes seemed good.” Two of the respondents with more neutral feedback referenced
the first public communication that announced the acquisition. Participant XYZ04 said,
“Keeping in mind that the message was-at first-‘status quo’, everyone is keeping their
jobs…even though they said status quo, I wondered…” Participant XYZ03 referenced the site
visit by ABC leadership: “I was on PTO when they first came to town, because BAU, we kept
going about our day, because supposedly no big changes at HO.” Participant XYZ06 was
concerned with what they saw: “They don’t know what they are doing,” Participant XYZ05 had
observed integration planning gaps: “It felt like the acquisition happened quickly and lacked
68

organization or a gameplan on the acquisition and integration…ABC wanted to be helpful, but
there was no strategy. It was chaotic.”
Participant concerns regarding acquisition communication were thematic throughout the
XYZ interviews. As early as Question 1b, XYZ participants mentioned communications.
Participant XYZ07 said, “I did not feel kept in the loop; overall communication could have been
better.” Whan answering Question 4 on how leadership could have improved the preacquisition
experience, Participant XYZ03 suggested, “More communications and give some indicators.
Messages seemed to come too suddenly for employees.” Participant XYZ07 would have liked
management to have, “Given us more insight about what was coming outside of what was
proprietary. It would have helped.” For the remaining six of eight XYZ participants, three (38%)
offered integration planning ideas, two (25%) indicated neutrality, and one (13%) said that
change was unnecessary.
Participant XYZ06 expressed emotion when recalling the XYZ CEO’s closure
announcement over the phone. Their response to a postacquisition engagement question was:
I thought the communication about the closure of the home office was very poorly
executed. We got 60-days-notice, and it was at the very beginning of COVID. We had
not been home very long-1 to 2 weeks-and the conference call announcement was only 5
minutes long. This was all new information to me, and we were all shocked. That day- a
Friday-to tell us we had no job-and we didn’t even hear about severance on that call-it
was horrible.
Participant XYZ02 also spoke passionately on the closure notice:
69

“At first, there was nothing. Then there was COVID and working from home. Then we get
the announcement of [the] home office closing, and our jobs being eliminated. I did not feel
engagement at that time.”
Overall responses for Question 3 included one of eight (13%) favorable, one of eight (13%)
unfavorable, and six of eight (75%) neutral responses. When any question generated both
favorable and unfavorable responses to the same question or probe, the rating of neutral was
applied. As a result, the rating did not adequately capture the tone, volume, or emotion for one
XYZ participant’s response to Question 3.
Like the ABC participants, the XYZ participants offered communications
recommendations for future acquisitions. Participant XYZ08 encouraged leadership to be
transparent from the outset: “Be more open with employees. They are not dumb, and they see the
writing on the walls. Find the balance with openness and candor to retain trust.” Participant
XYZ03 offered similar advice:
The problem of closing Home Office with BAU messaging is that you need to provide
some type of communication in advance. Just knowing the possibility that a site could
close is helpful. Do not drop a bomb on employees. COVID made it worse. I was scared.
Participant XYZ02 added, “Communications and emails are critical. If you’re going to get rid of
the legacy team, make sure you have the knowledge that goes with it.”
Of the 11 questions and probes within Question 1 through Question 3 on the interview
protocol, the XYZ participants provided only three favorable, comments about communications
at the newly combined company, despite 88 opportunities to do so. The three favorable
comments came from the three XYZ managers in the participant group. Unlike the other XYZ
participants, the managers had all worked on the integration project and had more access to
70

integration decisions than non-managers. Between the concerns that all XYZ participants shared
in the early part of the interview protocol and their suggestions for future acquisitions, the XYZ
participants provided 15 statements specific to communication problems or communication
improvements. Table 7 presents this communication feedback.
71

Table 7
Partial XYZ and ABC Participant Statements Regarding Communication Concerns
XYZ participant
statement
Participant
identifier code
I did not feel kept in the loop; overall communication could
have been better.
XYZ07
There was not a lot of communication at that point in time. XYZ05
From the Company, there seemed to be a lack of
communication.
ABC01
I do not feel like there was too much communications,
really…more communications would have been better.
ABC06
Things were up in air for a couple of weeks, and I felt there
could be better communications.
XYZ02
I thought the communication about the closure of the Home
Office was very poorly executed.
XYZ06
Communication became email only and out of the loop. XYZ07
I had no intention of downsizing, was OK. Again, I think it
was communication. I do not think there was much
communication with those folks either.
XYZ05
Some miscommunications from lack of data XYZ07
Company communication attempted to address Company as
one.
XYZ02
The lack of communication stood in the way. XYZ07
Communication was terrible. I couldn’t get them on the phone. XYZ07
We could have done a better job communication wise on both
sides…communication was just poor when we did
communicate…too little too late.
ABC05
I do not recall any communication about taking on another
company.
ABC07
More communications and give some indicators. Messages
seemed to come too suddenly for employees.
XYZ03
Responses in Table 5 for Participants ABC01, ABC02,
ABCO6, XYZ02, XYZ03, and XYZ06

Clear communication of the strategy ABC03
What to expect-communications. ABC04
The best way to approach some communications, so they can
share their communications.
ABC02
I would like to be kept in the loop with communications,
meetings.
XYZ07

72

Document Findings
The document findings revealed that the first public communication, announcing the
impending acquisition, and all internal communications, supporting the April 3, 2020, verbal
closure announcement and the events that followed, contributed to XYZ participant
dissatisfaction regarding acquisition communications. The talking points and Q&A for the April
3, 2020, communication referenced the 60-days' notice of job loss, providing the better of ABC
and XYZ’s severance programs, and COBRA support. However, XYZ participants did not
reference these benefits in their interview responses. Instead, they focused on the business-as-
usual language from the original acquisition announcement:
In the interim, nothing changes, and we continue to operate with a business-as-usual
mindset. Additionally, neither XYZ nor ABC are in a position legally to answer questions
related to the sale or the combined organization, assuming the sale occurs.
The words business-as-usual were referenced by two XYZ participants, once each. The acronym
BAU was used seven times by two different XYZ interview participants. One other XYZ
participant used the term status quo in the same context as business-as-usual, so five of eight
(63%) XYZ participants expressed dissatisfaction with the acquisition messaging, specific to the
first, public communication. There was no promise of job protection in the first, public or any
other public or internal Company communications. Last, several XYZ participants referenced the
April 3, 2020, call and their dissatisfaction with the manner in which it was executed, an
approach that was approved weeks in advance through the internal communication documents.
Summary
Initial postacquisition questions to XYZ participants yielded responses related to the
April 3, 2020, announcement of the XYZ corporate office closure. Although general
73

communications were repeatedly raised as the issue, 63% of XYZ participants specifically
referenced language from the first, public communications. The use of business-as-usual
messaging seemed to convey security such that the April 3, 2020, closure announcement
surprised XYZ participants. The documents featured in the document analysis component of this
research study were most impactful in the acquisition-related communications to XYZ
participants.
Research Question 3: In What Ways Did Employees Perceive Leadership as Influencing
Their Engagement Following the Acquisition?
By July 1, 2020, 6 months postacquisition, the XYZ executive team and employees from
the XYZ corporate office in were formally separated from the newly combined ABC Company,
and the XYZ corporate office closed. Displaced XYZ employees transitioned to severance at that
time, per the terms of their separation agreements. Also, in mid-2020, the social restrictions
related to COVID-19 began to lift across the newly combined company’s 11-state footprint.
Branches slowly re-opened, and some of the employees who had been released for exhausting
their paid-time-off were offered re-employment.
Tensions between the two legacy organizations also seemed to be improving. As
Participant ABC07 remarked, “When the people who were losing their jobs were gone, it seemed
like we were one company again.” During the last 3 months of 2020 and the first 3 months of
2021, the newly combined ABC Company integrated its first consolidated systems. By April 1,
2021, the newly combined ABC Company employees were enrolled in a single 401(k) retirement
plan, insured by the same benefits provider, and on the same payroll, time, and attendance,
recruiting, and learning platforms. Employees were also following the better of each legacy
company’s practices and policies from a newly published employee handbook. With these
74

implemented changes, legacy ABC and XYZ managers were using the same employee
infrastructure to lead and simultaneously work toward the same business outcomes. A natural by-
product of these synergies was a shift in intracompany vernacular from them to us. Participant
ABC02’s perspective on employee dynamics reflected this changing relationship, as the pace of
the transition quickened:
Once we knew who would remain, we would have routine team meetings. We could
recognize each other, work on tasks together, and begin transition-related initiatives. We
became unified, because we had common goals, so the unification occurred naturally.
Participant XYZ07 mentioned that the newly combined company was, “Trying to make it a
positive, united culture and not separated by legacy alignments.” Participant XYZ03 added,
“They were trying to take the best of both and not trying to push all of ABC onto XYZ.” The
improvement in participant feedback when referencing late 2020 and the 2021 performance year
informed the two themes of the third research question.

75

Theme 5: Employee Engagement Revived by Critical 2020 Leadership Hires and Changes
at the Newly Combined Company
In July 2020, the private equity owners of the newly combined ABC Company
transitioned the organization’s executive position to an externally hired CEO. This new CEO
relieved the Interim CEO and Chairman of the Board who had been managing all company
operations since July 2019. This interim leader had shepherded both legacy companies through
the acquisition, the first months of the integration, and the closure of the XYZ corporate office.
Additionally, the Interim CEO launched the transformation of the ELT. Between July 2019 and
July 2020, the Interim CEO released three struggling executives and pursued the hiring of four
strategic leaders. One of these leaders, the Chief Operations Officer (COO), joined in November
2020 and played a critical role in 2021 results and employee engagement. The COO was
referenced 15 times in the ABC and XYZ interview feedback. Consequently, when the newly
combined ABC Company was transitioned to a new CEO in July 2020, the Interim CEO had
positioned the organization for a strong end to 2020 and an unprecedented 2021.
Interview Findings
When asked to describe leadership at the newly combined ABC Company, the ABC
interview participants provided six of eight (75%) favorable, two of eight (25%) neutral, and
zero (0%) unfavorable responses. Participant ABC08 said, “Since I’ve been here, it’s the best
we’ve had.” Participant ABC06 added, “I think our leadership team is doing great. The quarterly
check-ins, monthly lunch and learns, Operations quarterly updates. [There’s] great direction.”
The XYZ interview participants also responded favorably: seven of eight (88%) favorable, one
of eight neutral (13%), and zero (0%) unfavorable responses. Participant XYZ08 described the
ELT as, “Very accommodating and positive…hopeful and thoughtful,” whereas Participant
76

XYZ01 indicated they provided, “a clear vision, transparency, and an open discussion on how
we’re going to get there”.
The interview participants’ preacquisition versus postacquisition responses highlighted
the effects of improved leadership at the newly combined company. When describing
preacquisition culture at legacy ABC, Participant ABC05 reflected on a period in 2019 before
the Interim CEO restored order:
Ethically, not stellar at the preacquisition, CEO level. The Interim CEO improved the
perceptions of the value of people and performance at corporate, so the ethical concerns
diminished. Expectations became more clear under the Interim CEO, and it started to feel
like we had a game plan and company mission.
ABC Company preacquisition feedback on culture was mixed. There were two of eight (25%)
favorable, two of eight (25%) unfavorable, and four of eight (50%) neutral responses. According
to Participant ABC02, “Our culture was still in development…and it was lacking. There was no
real unity…and the culture wasn’t there.” Table 8 reflects all or part of the responses from 15 of
16 (94%) of the interview participants regarding leadership at the newly combined ABC
Company.
77

Table 8
Participant Interview Feedback on Postacquisition Leadership
Participant
Q9: Can you describe leadership at the newly combined
company?
ABC05 I felt good about it-we had the right people. The leadership was easy
to respect. I did not have to like all of the personalities. I felt
they had the best interest of the company in mind.
ABC03 Leadership is effective overall, especially the COO. They are
committed which inspires others and unifies.
ABC01 With the performance management system, it is more employee-
focused versus job-focused, so performance extends beyond just
doing one’s job.
ABC02 Leadership is a lot better because the current leaders are promoting
the development of other leaders. This a shift in focus, including
making training available to other leaders, building leadership
development programs, and there is a push for development
other than just simple accountability.
ABC04 The hiring in the latter part of the year has improved. Leadership has
made huge strides in communicating vision and expectations on
how we perform to meet that vision. The CFO has had a
stabilizing effect on the Accounting Department.
ABC06 I think our leadership team is doing great. The quarterly check-ins,
monthly lunch and learns, Operations quarterly updates.
[There’s] great direction.
ABC07 Everything that I know, I feel like comes from my direct leader, and
I have disliked the messages coming from the CEO. The COO
seems nice. I grew up in the 60s-70s, and my perception is
colored by gender differences.
ABC08 Good-I don’t have a problem with any of them. Since I’ve been
here, it’s the best we’ve had.
XYZ01 Clear vision and transparency with open discussion on how we
are going to get there. Business as usual is what we were told
as the acquired company and that is how it started and that is
what happened, so that builds trust. We heard we were not
closing branches, and we did not. Employees were fearful but
were reassured since there were no competitors nearby. There
was no overlap in most states so a favorable response there.
Two years later, there’s further support and no hindrance. I
communicate with the CEO twice monthly and weekly with
the COO. I ask questions and get answers.

78

Participant
Q9: Can you describe leadership at the newly combined
company?
XYZ02 I just had a lunch and learn with the COO, and I found it funny,
because I was the only person on the call with tenure. The
COO sticks out, and I think it’s a good thing to have. They
seem like they wants us to grow. I feel like the executives are
doing what they are supposed to be doing, but I do not know
how long they will be here.
XYZ03 I really like the leadership. They want to create opportunities for
employees, and I might have a leadership opportunity myself in
the future. If I do, I know I will be mentored. There’s an open
door. It’s a nice environment. The one time I was in the same
city with my leaders, they made a point to come meet me. I feel
like it is a very relaxed leadership environment.
XYZ04 I have a lot of respect for the CEO and COO, and they are both still
here.
XTZ06 I did not have an opinion until I went to ABC corporate in
November. Talking to them in person opened my eyes. I do not
have anything bad to say and do not know they have been here
long enough to provide an opinion. I see them making a lot of
changes. I hear that our voices are being heard more so than
before. Whether communications or training or development, I
do see changes happening.
XYZ07 Getting better. There’s not a lot of correspondence, but I feel far
removed and there’s personally not a lot of interaction since I’m
remote. I get all communication from the CEO, COO, and
Tuesday communication.
XYZ08 Very accommodating…positive, hopeful, and thoughtful, but overall
feel is chaotic, because many new team members in leadership
which is unsettling. Once everyone found footing, is great.

The four neutral respondents acknowledged the strengths and weaknesses of this transition
period. Participant ABC03 said, “I think our culture was good-family focused with core values-
with the caveat of the prior CEO who was terminated.” The XYZ participants did not feel like
they had enough preacquisition knowledge of the legacy ABC Company to respond, so seven of
eight (88%) indicated that they did not know. One of eight (13%), Participant XYZ07, had a
neutral perception of ABC’s culture and said, “I felt like it was upbeat, and everyone seemed
positive…but it seemed like we weren’t being directly communicated to.”
79

As the interview questions evolved through the stages of the acquisition, participant
feedback followed and reflected the shifts in leadership. For example, Question 9d focused on
postacquisition leadership: Two-years postacquisition, how has leadership either supported or
hindered your trust? Of all ABC and XYZ interview participants, nine of 16 (56%) indicated that
leadership supported their trust, none (0%) responded that trust was hindered, and seven of 16
(44%) provided neutral responses. The nine favorable responses were almost evenly split with
five from legacy ABC and four from legacy XYZ. The cultural progression at the newly
combined ABC Company was articulated by Participant XYZ06 after a visit to ABC’s corporate
office, almost 1-year postacquisition:
I did not have an opinion until I went to ABC corporate in November [2020]. Talking to
them in-person opened my eyes…I see them making a lot of changes. I hear that our
voices are being heard more so than before. Whether communications, training, or
development, I do see changes happening.
When asked whether their opinion had changed about the newly combined company 2
years postacquisition, five of eight (63%) ABC participants said the environment was better.
Participant ABC05 indicated that, “Leadership was much stronger, role clarity was stronger, and
work-life balance felt better.” Participant ABC02 agreed: “New leadership has continued to
unify us into one company.” Participant ABC03 shared an opinion about the culture progression
from 2020 to 2021with the postacquisition leadership team:
In 2021, the culture was much more unified. Operations was much better. We rolled out
one unified incentive plan, we measured people the same way, we reported as one
company, and we aligned operations. There was joint ownership, and we rebranded under
XYZ’s name.
80

The XYZ participants’ responses to the same question yielded six of eight (75%) favorable
responses, no (0%) unfavorable responses, and two of eight (25%) neutral responses. Participant
XYZ03 observed, “The new people that have come on, I do see a lot of leadership wanting to
grow their teams’ career paths more than before and promoting from within instead of going
outside.” ABC and XYZ participant responses to Question 9, Can you describe leadership at the
newly combined company? reflected the leadership progress made from 2019 to 2021.
Document Findings
The documents included in the document analysis addressed preacquisition events only.
Leadership was not a focus of the public or internal communication efforts. Additionally,
leadership was not the subject of documentation used for any other purpose in the acquisition
event or the research study. Consequently, the document analysis did not contribute to the
interview findings for the 16 ABC or XYZ participants for Theme 5 of Research Question 3.
Summary
After the XYZ corporate office closed in June 2020 and the displaced XYZ team
members left, ABC and XYZ interview participants began to experience unity in their
developing culture. The transition from an Interim CEO to a new CEO was accompanied by
critical, executive leadership changes, including a new COO. In alignment with this new
leadership, the interview participants’ feedback conveyed a sense of team, engagement, culture,
development, and growth. The content of their feedback and the shift in the number of favorable
versus unfavorable responses reflect the improvement in engagement and culture at the newly
combined ABC Company from 2019 to 2021.
81

Theme 6: ABC and XYZ Employees Described Preacquisition Engagement Transformed
by New Leadership in 2021
The year 2021 was a transformative year for the newly combined ABC Company. A
predominantly new ELT was moving the organization forward, led by a new CEO, Chief
Financial Officer (CFO), and COO, who led 90% of the Company’s employees. As 2020
prepared for 2021, the newly combined ABC experienced a November in which it met financial
expectations for the first time since 2017. Legacy ABC and XYZ participants relayed renewed
optimism about the newly combined ABC and its leadership in their interviews.
Interview Findings
When asked how they would describe the newly combined company to prospective hires
or friends, 11 of 16 (69%) participants recommended the new ABC Company or made a
favorable comment about the organization, five of 16 (31%) participants provided neutral
answers, and no one (0%) offered an unfavorable response. According to Participant ABC05, the
newly combined ABC Company was:
A fun place to work [with] good work life balance with job satisfaction [and] appropriate
recognition for a job well done and becoming an engaging company [with] lunch and
learns, happy hours, and…being an engaging workplace that works hard but also
prioritizes engagement.
Participant XYZ01 was focused on career growth when suggesting there was: “Opportunity if
you are committed. We will give you the path. XYZ did not have that.” Participant XYZ03
added:
82

leadership. I talk about the culture and that it’s a great company because of people you
work with and leaders being leaders. They want to see their employees grown and keep
the best people. It’s relaxed and professional too, but approachable.
Participant XYZ08 was looking ahead and said leadership was sponsoring, “Good, future-
forward, long-term tech initiatives that we’re building towards.”
When asked about their motivations to stay with the newly combined company, ABC
participants answered specifically and emphatically: leadership. Participant ABC05 said, “Our
leadership-it felt like we finally had the right players. I was feeling really good about the
department I was in and the team I was on.” Participant ABC01 offered, “The history with my
team and leadership-it was phenomenal-and I am growing myself within [my department].
Leaders wanted to see me improve and strive. I felt supported.” Participant ABC01 seemed
aware of the work the ELT had sponsored to improve engagement:
New leadership started taking advice on how culture should be shaped and how to engage
new team members. This was a drastic change in team culture, and you could see [the
culture] changing so much. I wanted to stay for the engagement goals, for the changes to
operations communications, the improved incentive plans, the holiday events, the
fundraising. I felt we could build momentum for a better culture.
Document Findings
The documents in the document analysis addressed preacquisition events only.
Leadership was not a focus of the public or internal communication efforts. Additionally,
leadership was not the subject of documentation used for any other purpose in the acquisition
event or the research study. Consequently, the document analysis did not contribute to the
interview findings for ABC or XYZ participants for Theme 6 of Research Question 3.i
83

Summary
In 2021, the most immediate change to the newly combined ABC’s infrastructure
affecting organizational output was leadership, and Operations leadership changes had the most
direct impact on financial results. Turnover declined, and productivity and profit increased to a
record high of $41 Million. Table 9 illustrated this financial achievement and improvements in
leadership through the reduced ELT and senior leadership turnover. in 2021. The common
denominator in the interview participant feedback during this period of increasing success was
not communications or a comprehensive integration plan. Through their responses, ABC and
XYZ participants said the improved culture, engagement, and performance were driven by
leadership.
Starting with Question 9, the interview protocol featured questions on postacquisition
leadership. The responses from both ABC and XYZ participants reflected a dramatically more
favorable trend as compared to responses from Questions 1 through 4, earlier in the protocol.
The earlier questions inquired about the preacquisition period and the evolving culture and
employee behaviors following the December 2019 legal acquisition. Two years later, however,
as the executive leadership changed, the tone and content of the feedback shifted as well with a
focus on engagement, culture, unity, performance, and intent to stay. Participants mentioned the
Interim CEO and COO as pivotal to the shift in leadership approach, but the overall common
denominator among the responses to which participants attributed the Company’s positive
engagement, productivity, and profitability changes was company-wide leadership.

84

Table 9
2013 2021 ELT* Turnover, ABC Turnover, and ABC Financials

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
2019
ABC
only
2020
ABC &
XYZ***
2021
newly
combined
ABC
ELT*
Hired #
Termed #

2
2

0
1

1
1

1
0

1
1

2
1

4
4

2
3

0
1
Company
Turnover %

67%

69%

66%

60%

76%

53%

83%

49%

60%
EBT**
Adjusted
in $MM

$14
MM

$21
MM

$27
MM

$15
MM

$22
MM

$23
MM

$11
MM

$24
MM

$41
MM
*Executive Leadership Team
**Earnings Before Taxes
***XYZ average turnover from 2016-2018 was 28%

Summary of Findings
Participant responses indicated that the communication approach for ABC’s acquisition
of XYZ Company was poorly managed and executed. Additionally, ABC and XYZ participants
said transparent communications and integration planning were both a requirement and a
minimum expectation to successfully execute a project with the scope of the ABC and XYZ
integration. Integration planning encompassed the HR transition plan, training, and resources like
FTE and IT. XYZ participants were the more negatively affected employee population, however,
all employees shared mixed degrees of engagement before and immediately following the legal
acquisition in December 2019. After the April 2020 announcement of the XYZ office closure,
participant frustrations peaked, especially for XYZ participants.
The document analysis findings showed effects on XYZ participants only, primarily
regarding responses to Question 1 through Question 4 and their probes. The messaging in the
85

public and internal communications were interpreted and repeated in XYZ participant responses
in a context of disappointment or frustration toward the overall acquisition communication
efforts. The ABC participants shared communications concerns with their XYZ counterparts, but
ABC participants never referenced a specific communication or verbatim messaging from one of
the public or internal communications. All public and internal communications addressed
preacquisition events only, so document analysis findings did not affect the themes for Research
Question 3.
After the XYZ office closure and the departure of the affected XYZ corporate employees
in mid-2020, both ABC and XYZ responses became considerably more favorable. Also, in mid-
2020, an Interim CEO prepared to transition the newly combined ABC Company to a new CEO.
The Interim CEO made significant ELT changes within the 12 months prior and identified the
COO candidate who would join later in the year. As the new CEO assumed control in July 2020,
participant responses showed perceptions of greater unity, collaboration, culture, and
engagement. When asked specifically about leadership, ABC and XYZ participants provided
mostly favorable remarks about the work that they observed and experienced with new
leadership. The participants cited employee engagement and an enhanced culture, and they spoke
with an enthusiasm and urgency that felt new. The newly combined ABC Company achieved
record results in 2021, and when ABC and XYZ participants compared their feelings on the
Company in 2019 versus 2 years later, there was one common denominator to which they
pointed as the success driver: leadership.

86

Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations
The purpose of this study was to explore how to promote a positive employee experience
in merger and acquisition (M&A) transformations, including the role of HR transition planning.
Despite extensive M&A history and varying definitions of success and failure, M&A failure
rates have been as high as 70% over the last 4 decades. Some researchers believed the source of
failure was inadequate HR planning, resulting in employee anxiety, frustration, and
counterproductive behavior that slowed M&A transition progress (Applebaum, 2000; Davies et
al., 2011 Legare, 1998; Salame, 2006; Schraeder & Self, 2003; Shook & Roth, 2011; Weber,
2015). Since historical research found that employee engagement was positively correlated to
productivity, and productivity was positively correlated to profitability, social science
researchers concluded that employee engagement favorably affected profitability (Baur &
Schmitz, 2012; Benjamin, 2008; Salkind & Frey, 2019; Schraeder & Self, 2003; Shook & Roth,
2011).
This research study posed three research questions and explored them through the Burke
and Litwin (1992) organizational performance and change (OP&C) model. Employee
engagement was the study’s focus and informed the three questions of its research design:
1. How engaged are employees from ABC and XYZ with the newly combined ABC?
2. What was the experience of employees from ABC and XYZ during the acquisition
process in the formation of the newly combined ABC?
3. In what ways did employees perceive leadership as influencing their engagement
following the acquisition?
The study’s research methodology was qualitative with data collected through open-ended, semi-
structured interview questions and document analysis (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam &
87

Tisdell, 2016). The data analysis was inductive, and the study’s timing resulted in the literature
review and data collection being conducted over 2 years after the acquisition event.
Consequently, the HR transition plan used in the 2019 acquisition could not leverage the
information discovered in the 2020 literature review. The HR transition plan successes found
through the literature review were consistent with participant feedback in the interview findings.
Discussion of Findings
The Burke and Litwin (1992) OP&C conceptual framework divided organizational and
individual performance into two factors: transformational and transactional (Stone, 2015). Each
factor features multiple variables used collectively as the OP&C model to diagnose and resolve
organizational issues (Burke & Litwin, 1992). As a policy or procedure, the HR transition plan
was considered a System and therefore a transactional input to the OP&C model (Burke &
Litwin, 1992). The acquisition (Structure) was also a transactional input, and the External
Environment was influenced but unmeasured by the COVID-19 pandemic. Leadership and
culture, which became significant inputs to employee engagement as acquisition integration
progressed, were components of the OP&C model’s transformational factor (Burke & Litwin,
1992).
Integration Plan
While deemed a requisite part of the M&A integration solution, the HR transition plan
was not the primary input to employee engagement. Interview responses indicated that
participants expected all planning, including HR planning, to be a minimum requirement met by
the acquiring or merging company before the start of the initiative. Four of eight (50%) ABC
participants and three of eight (38%) XYZ participants specifically mentioned the importance of
planning in their feedback (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
88

When the participants spoke of planning, the integration plan encompassed HR actions,
such as communications and learning, and resource concerns, such as Full Time Employee
(FTE) and Information Technology (IT) support. Five of 16 (31%) participants also mentioned
the importance of departmental teams when describing their preferred, individual involvement in
future M&As. Table 5 and Table B2 reflect participant recommendations for future acquisitions
and how they wished to be involved in organizational transformations, respectively.
Integration Lead
An outstanding question remained regarding whom would prepare and manage the
integration plan and departmental assignments. With the research study focused on M&A
planning and engagement, the scope did not address plan management, although it may have
been implied. Many of the suggestions offered by interview participants in Table 5 or the
requests shared in Table B2 could not be fulfilled without coordinated, integration management.
For example, participant XYZ02 suggested that “[ABC] could have asked more questions before
letting people go…[to] make sure you have the knowledge that goes with [them].” Participant
XYZ05 asked for, “M&A expertise to help deliver on that project. It didn’t seem like we had one
person engaged and in charge for ABC and XYZ.” These participant comments suggested a
resource at the newly combined ABC would solicit employee feedback and ensure that employee
needs were met. Last, two comments from ABC Company participants reinforced the need for
acquisition integration leadership. Participant ABC04 said, “Definitely have infrastructure in
place to merge two systems quickly, and do not allow the knowledge base to leave before it is
transferred.” Participant ABC02 suggested, “Offer Q&A sessions,” with Participant ABC01
noting, “cross departmental meetings” as a potential strategy. An acquisition integration
leadership resource could address these gaps.

89

Senior and Executive Leadership
ABC and XYZ interview findings confirmed that employee engagement and financial
results reported for 2021 at the newly combined ABC Company were influenced by
organizational leadership. The postacquisition Company experienced record performance results
and minimal employee and leader turnover in the 11 months following the stabilization of senior
leadership and the Executive Leadership Team (ELT). In the literature review, Goodman (2016)
commented on senior leadership’s influence in M&A outcomes and noted a senior leader’s
ability to facilitate unity in new organizations. Other than Goodman’s (2016) contribution and a
Koi-Akrofi (2016) notation that leadership apathy was a root cause of M&A failure, leadership
was not directly addressed in the literature review. The emergence of leadership in Research
Question 3 occurred in late 2021, before data collection but almost two years postacquisition. At
that time, the impact of effective leadership was measurable fiscally and with retention trends at
the newly combined ABC, but employee feedback was anecdotal.
Mergers and acquisitions, HR transition planning, and employee engagement were the
study’s key concepts, since prior research correlated employee engagement success with HR
planning in M&A transitions (Applebaum, 2000; Shook & Roth, 2011; & Weber, 2015).
Conversely, ABC and XYZ participant feedback indicated employees expected an integration
plan and HR plan to preserve preacquisition engagement. Interview participants also requested
these plans from company leadership before the M&A launch. These specific requests were
made after participants shared experiences of low engagement in conjunction with the poorly
received XYZ office closure communications. Consequently, a transactional input like the HR
transition plan did not transform the newly combined ABC Company from its April 2019
postacquisition state to its November 2021 state of unprecedented success. Instead, leadership,
90

an OP&C transformational input (Burke & Litwin, 1992), seemed to facilitate the tangible
retention and financial gains that led to the newly combined ABC’s December 2021 sale. In
Figure 4, the OP&C model was adapted once more to reflect the participant feedback and study
recommendations which emphasized the influence of leadership on engagement and profitability.
The relationship between leadership and culture was also recognized, as the two topics were
paired in the responses of multiple participants.
91

Figure 4
Adaptation of the Burke Litwin Causal Model of Organizational Performance for the Newly
Combined ABC Company

Recommendations
Three recommendations were provided to address key findings. Recommendation 1
addresses participant feedback on the need for an integration plan, including plan components
like an HR transition plan and FTE and IT resources. Recommendation 2 addresses a related
need, an integration leader to manage the integration plan and departmental representation
throughout the M&A transition. Recommendation 3 addresses the critical importance of senior
and executive leadership for any transforming organization that seeks engagement, productivity,
92

and profitability through three stages of pronounced change: unfreeze, change, and refreeze
(Lewin, 1947).
Recommendation 1: M&A Initiatives Require an Integration Plan With Resource and HR
Transition Plan Components, Including Detailed Communication and Learning Sections
When describing their involvement in future acquisitions, interview participants
discussed the importance of planning. Participants used the terminology ‘integration plan’ and
‘project plan’ to reference M&A activity occurring between the first M&A communication and
postacquisition, integration closure. The HR transition plan was described as a component of the
larger integration plan. Because communications and learning were referenced as components of
an HR plan in the literature review, they are referenced as such in this recommendations. Last,
feedback regarding resource needs, such as FTE or IT support, indicated that both should be
included in the integration plan. Like leadership, integration resources were not part of the
study’s original theory and therefore not explored in the literature review. The demand for
sufficient employee and IT resources during acquisition integration was another byproduct of the
inductive research approach (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Seven of 16 (44%) participants mentioned or suggested integration planning or HR
planning in their interview response: Four ABC and three XYZ. Their interview feedback,
depicted in Table 5, corroborated the need for the plan components of communications and
learning. Six of eight (75%) XYZ participants cited communications as their most frequent
preacquisition and postacquisition challenge. When asked about future M&A projects, three of
eight (38%) ABC participants shared communications ideas, and four of eight (50%) shared
communications and learning recommendations. Deloitte (2020) and Schraeder and Self (2003)
93

suggested deliberate employee communications and learning as part of an M&A HR plan to
improve the employee experience and post M&A production.
Applebaum (2000), Salame (2006), and Shook and Roth (2011) posited that
communications and learning interventions most affected employee perceptions, so they
suggested that these two components be launched with the first public M&A communication.
The HR plan should specify this timing for communications and learning events to engage and
inform employees from the outset of the M&A journey (Applebaum, 2000; Salame, 2006; Shook
& Roth, 2011). Participant XYZ06’s comment captured the sentiment well: “You need
transparency and to know what you are getting into. Train your people before you let the
acquired knowledge go. Training and communication should be the number one priority.”
In response to interview Question 2a and Question 12d, the interview participants
revealed resource concerns. They questioned how they could integrate two business platforms
while maintaining current operations without additional FTE and IT support. In the months
following the December 2019 legal acquisition, the newly combined ABC Company failed to
provide this needed support, making 2020 a challenging year for integration work. When asked
whether the company communications had “mitigated their concerns” about the upcoming
acquisition, only three of 16 (19%) interview participants provided favorable responses, four of
16 (25%) had an unfavorable response, and nine of 16 (56%) had neutral responses. Going into
an M&A initiative, executive, senior, and integration leadership should secure the requisite FTE
and IT resources such that the additional workload and deadlines related to the integration can be
reasonably met.
In summary, organizations embarking on an M&A transformation should anticipate the
development of an integration plan, to be completed before the first public communication of the
94

forthcoming M&A. The timing should reflect the first public communication regarding the
signed M&A letter of intent. The integration plan should include an HR plan with detailed
communication and learning components. Additionally, the integration plan should specify the
FTE requirements and IT expertise, whether IT FTE, hardware, or software.
Recommendation 2: M&A Initiatives Require an Integration Plan Leader With
Departmental Representation
Five of 16 (31%) interview participants suggested that integration or departmental teams
would have facilitated a more seamless acquisition experience. In some cases, responsibility was
implicitly assigned to legacy ABC, legacy XYZ, or the newly combined ABC Company, based
on the participant terminology and the time period referenced in the comments. The common
denominator among most of the responses was that they required a resource to organize and
manage their fulfillment. Without leader oversight of employee feedback, employee input might
go unaddressed altogether. With 14 of 16 (88%) interview participants offering improvement
ideas and 13 of 16 (81%) offering their services for future acquisitions, there was sufficient
demand for an integration leader among participants. As a result, Recommendation 2 would
supplement Recommendation 1, providing an integration leader resource to manage the
integration plan and its components. The feedback in Tables 6 and B2 provide specific
acquisition suggestions, requests, and expectations that may be leveraged in future M&A
transformations.
Recommendation 3: The Executive Leadership Team Should be Stable Enough to Support
Integration and the Post M&A Organization
Although leadership was not originally a key concept in this study, leadership was often
referenced in historical research on employee engagement and M&A. For example, Schraeder
95

and Self (2003) found that senior leaders played a critical role in the development of post M&A
relationships and trust between employees. According to Applebaum (2000), one of a senior
leader’s greatest post M&A responsibilities was the design of the new culture and future state.
The interview protocol was adjusted to include leadership questions after the dissertation
proposal defense, when the newly combined ABC recorded unprecedented financial and
retention success. Based on anecdotal employee feedback, these extreme results seemed more
strongly associated to leadership changes than the communication component of the HR plan. As
a result, the interview protocol was adjusted to determine leadership’s effect on postacquisition
performance.
Under the guidance of a transformed ELT, including a new Chief Operating Officer
(COO) and CFO, 11 of 16 (69%) interview participants said they would recommend the new
ABC Company as an employer. When asked to describe leadership at the newly combined ABC
Company, 13 of 16 (81%) interview participants responded favorably, zero (0%) offered
unfavorable responses, and three of 16 (19%) shared neutral comments. Last, when asked how
they felt about the newly combined ABC Company 2 years postacquisition, 11 of 16 (69%)
participants said the environment was better, with leadership and culture cited as the leading
reasons.
The study’s inductive research approach disproved the assumption that an HR transition
plan sustained employee engagement through an acquisition (Creswell & Creswell, 2018;
Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Instead, it found strong evidence supporting leadership as the source
of employee engagement, improved culture, and profitability at the newly combined ABC
Company. In summary, strong, and stable senior and executive leadership teams should be fully
operational before launching M&A transformations. The stages of organizational change that
96

accompany a transition of this magnitude require strategic coordination, collaboration, and
planned messaging to engage employees in their new culture.
Integrated Implementation Plan
The simplest organizational framework with which to implement all three
recommendations is Lewin’s Three-Stage Model of Change (Lewin, 1947; Schein, 2010), as
depicted in Figure 5.

97

Figure 5
Lewin’s 3-Stage Model of Change

Lewin’s model is considered a classic change model, but more importantly, it is simple
and concise for any integration manager or employee to follow. The integration and HR planning
segment of an M&A initiative would comprise the Unfreeze stage, as resources are gathered,
communications and learning plans are created, and an integration team with departmental
representation is assembled. The legal transition and the integration that follows would represent
the Change stage. As the newly combined company emerges, the Refreeze stage occurs
(Cummings, et al, 2016; Lewin, 1947).
To strengthen and stabilize leadership, a party senior to the ELT would assess the ELT in
the Unfreeze stage. The assessment may occur via a company’s standard performance measure
for annual or semi-annual reviews. Alternatively, the ELT member may assess themselves along
with their direct reports, peers, and direct manager in a 360-degree evaluation process. The party
or parties assessing the ELT, which may include company ownership or the board of directors,
would select an assessment medium and determine in the Unfreeze stage where leadership
changes were required. The separation of inadequate leadership and the hiring of new leadership
would occur during a carefully planned transition period taking months up to a year. This period
represents the Change stage. Once all leadership moves are complete and the ELT is moving
98

forward as one unit, the Refreeze stage is complete. The ELT may conduct a similar process for
their direct reports, with the process continuing until the governing body of the company and the
ELT believe company leadership is stable and strong.
The effectiveness of the acquisition integration plan, HR plan, and integration leader can
be measured by employee engagement found at the newly combined company in the refreeze
state. The engagement score after the refreeze state would be compared to the engagement score
in the unfreeze state of the legacy organizations and the change state, mid-way through the M&A
event. The Gallup Q12 is the recommended employee engagement assessment, given its
reliability and validity history since its 1996 inception (Harter et al., 2012) and the demonstrated
relationship between employee engagement and performance (r = .42). The Q12 is different than
other engagement surveys because employees prepare the recommendations that address areas of
lower engagement, and they own the progress themselves.
Limitations and Delimitations
Theofanidis and Fountouki (2019) described delimitations as the boundaries established
by a researcher to ensure the achievability of a study’s goals. Researchers control a study’s
delimitations which include its research questions, framework, key concepts, and participant
sample. The delimitations of this research study were its three research questions; its OP&C
conceptual framework; the key concepts of M&A, employee engagement, and an HR transition
plan; and the participant sample of eight ABC participants and eight XYZ participants (Burke &
Litwin, 1992). Conversely, Theofanidis and Fountouki (2019) defined a limitation as
an “‘imposed’ restriction which is therefore essentially out of the re-searcher’s control” (pp.156-
157). Because a study’s limitations affect its design, results, and recommendations, they should
99

be acknowledged in that study’s publication. For example, this research study had five,
uncontrollable limitations.
First, my role as Chief Human Resources Officer (CHRO) of the legacy ABC and the
newly combined ABC could have misled participants to believe they were required to engage in
the study. However, the newly combined ABC was itself acquired in December 2021, and in
January 2022, the newly combined ABC announced my permanent departure on March 31, 2022.
Because participant interviews were scheduled for February and March 2022, any perceived
threats related to my CHRO role were eliminated before the participant interviews began.
Second, I prepared all public and internal communications for the acquisition in my role
as CHRO. Since I also coded and analyzed the document findings, implicit bias could be raised
as an issue. However, by the time I collected and coded the data, between February and April
2022, I had been separated from the newly combined ABC Company. The separation was
announced in mid-January 2022, before the data collection began which negated any bias or
conflict of interest.
Third, data collection for this research project could not occur until 24-months
postacquisition, when I was at the point in the doctoral program to create a research methodology
and dissertation plan from a problem of practice. Enough time had passed since the December
2019 acquisition that some previously eligible research participants had left the organization.
The eligible participants who remained may not have recalled all of their feelings toward the
Company’s acquisition-related decisions from 2 years prior.
Fourth, the sample size of eligible participants from XYZ’s corporate office was small.
Two years postacquisition, only eight of these employees remained. Fortunately, all eight XYZ
corporate employees agreed to participate in the interviews. Despite these four study limitations,
100

interview feedback offered valuable insight into the employee experience during and after the
acquisition and suggestions for improving the experience in future M&A transitions.
Last, COVID-19 was an uninvited and unanticipated variable that negatively affected the
ABC and XYZ integration through 2020. Ten weeks after the December 2019 legal acquisition
and two weeks prior to the April 3, 2020, announcement of the XYZ corporate office closure, the
newly combined ABC company closed all 415 branches and sent home its employees. Chaos and
uncertainty slowed integration efforts considerably until the June 30, 2020, XYZ office closure.
Afterward, as the pandemic started to lift regionally and new leaders joined the ELT, offices
slowly opened, employees returned to work selectively, and improvements were noted
throughout the organization, including within the integration effort.
Recommendations for Future Research
If given the opportunity, most ABC and XYZ interview participants said they wanted to
be included in the integration effort. Table B2 reflects the participants’ perceptions of the
December 2019 acquisition and it impact. Participant replies formed three patterns: wanting their
department represented on the integration team; wanting a forum to provide departmental
feedback; and ensuring their feedback was documented and heard. Document analysis was used
to support qualitative interviews, but the limited sample size of 16 interview participants may
call into question the study’s results. The use of a larger sample size, quantitative research
methodology, and different data collection medium like a survey could demonstrate the
statistical strength of the results: reliability, validity, and the correlation coefficients for
engagement to performance, productivity, and profitability. Additionally, future research should
minimize the time between the acquisition event and data collection, to maximize the size of the
participant population and improve the accuracy of their memory recall. Last, both culture and
101

transformational leadership should be the focus of future, M&A engagement research. Culture
was a topic covered in the literature review but outside of the scope of this study. However, the
ABC and XYZ interview participants raised culture as a topic outside of the culture-specific
interview questions. Additionally, some participants seemed to logically pair feedback on
leadership and culture together. Regarding transformational leadership, the participants’ specific
descriptions of their leaders’ influence on morale, self-efficacy, development, and work
environment were emotional and moving. As the data in Table 9 illustrated, transactional inputs
did not transform the postacquisition ABC Company in 11 months to the point of sale.
Leadership transformed ABC.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to explore how to promote a positive employee experience
in M&A transformations, including the role of HR transition planning. The intent of the study
was to help leaders guide their employees through transformational change at work. The
outcome of the study was leadership as a driver of engagement and bottom-line results at ABC
Company. The study also reinforced the importance of integration and HR planning, including
transparent communication, robust learning, and technological and FTE support, to complete
ABC’s integration. The information and feedback collected through this study could support
organizations considering an M&A transformation with staff who are unfamiliar with the
process.
Coincidentally, this study was organized like an M&A engagement playbook. The
sequence of information included a history of the why behind M&A successes and failures,
communications and learning approaches, preacquisition and postacquisition transition ideas,
and employee engagement and culture research. The most rich feature was the interview
102

participant feedback on tactical integration issues or resource gaps that no one considered before.
Employees also shared reactions to communications messaging or how leaders could have
handled sensitive situations differently. Detailed, verbatim interview responses are provided in
table format, so that the responses may be reviewed efficiently. Additionally, the participant
feedback themes are summarized in Chapter 5.
Last, this study represents the voices of a company’s employees and serves as a toolkit to
plan an M&A that they would support. Whether acquired or acquiring, any employee can enter a
business integration enthusiastically, champion their future company through a transition, and
emerge postacquisition as a productive and engaged teammate. To transform to a one-company
mindset, these employees require the fulfillment of Recommendation 1 through
Recommendation 3 in Chapter 5. Additionally, the leaders of these employees should have
specifics on what not to do and best practices for ensuring engagement throughout
transformation. These specifics, offered through historical research, interview participant
feedback, and suggestions for future acquisitions, are detailed in the pages of this study. By
default, this preparation should drive profit for the post M&A organization, creating a business
case for transitioning employee fear into enthusiasm and uncertainty to excitement when
introducing the next M&A transformation.

103

References
Aon Hewitt. (2013). Managing employee engagement during times of change.
https://www.aon.com/attachments/human-capital-
consulting/2013_Managing_Engagement_During_Times_of_Change_White_Paper.pdf
Appelbaum, G. (2000). Anatomy of a merger: behavior of organizational factors and processes
throughout the pre- during- post stages (part 1). Management Decision, 38(9), 649–662.
https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740010357267
Appelbaum, G. (2000). Anatomy of a merger: behavior of organizational factors and processes
throughout the pre- during- post stages (part 2). Management Decision, 38(10), 674–684.
https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740010360579
Avey, W. (2008). Can positive employees help positive organizational change? Impact of
psychological capital and emotions on relevant attitudes and behaviors. The Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 44(1), 48–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886307311470
Baur, D., & Schmitz, H. P. (2012). Corporations and NGOs: When accountability leads to co-
optation. Journal of Business Ethics, 106(1), 9-21.
Benjamin, L. M. (2008). Account space: How accountability requirements shape nonprofit
practice. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 37(2), 201–223.
Bijlsma-Frankema, K. (2001). On managing cultural integration and cultural change processes in
mergers and acquisitions. Journal of European Industrial Training, 25(2/3/4), 192–207.
https://doi.org/10.1108/03090590110395807
Boen, V. (2010). When the best become the rest: The interactive effect of premerger status and
relative representation on post merger identification and ingroup bias. Group Processes
& Intergroup Relations, 13(4), 461–475. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430209350746
104

Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a research method. Qualitative Research Journal
9(2), 27-40.
Brueller, N., Carmeli, A., & Markman, G. (2016). Linking merger and acquisition strategies to
post merger integration: A configurational perspective of human resource management.
Journal of Management, 44(5), 1793–1818. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315626270
Bruner, R. F. (2002). Does M & A pay? A survey of evidence for the decision-maker. Journal of
Applied Finance, 12(1), 48-69.
Burke, W.W., & Litwin, G.H. (1992). A causal model of organizational performance and change.
Journal of Management, 18(3), 523-545. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639201800306
Cartwright, H. (2006). The meaning of work: The challenge of regaining employee engagement
and reducing cynicism. Human Resource Management Review, 16(2), 199–208.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2006.03.012
Cartwright, S. (2006). Thirty years of mergers and acquisitions research: Recent advances and
future opportunities. British Journal of Management, 17(Supplement 1), S1–S5.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2006.00475.x
Cartwright, S. (2012). Individual response to mergers and acquisitions. In Faulkner, D.,
Teerikangas, S., & Joseph, R. J. (Eds.), The handbook of mergers and acquisitions (pp.
372 -385). Oxford University Press.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Sage Publications.
Cummings, B. T., & Brown, K. G. (2016). Unfreezing change as three steps: Rethinking Kurt
Lewin’s legacy for change management. Human Relations, 69(1), 33–60.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726715577707
105

Davies, D., Liang, W., Yuhua, X., & Xinyan, Z. (2011). Human resource problems during a
merger and acquisition. In Davies, D., & Wei, L. (Eds.), Human resources management
in China: Cases in HR practice (pp. 63-75). Chandos Publishing.
Deloitte. (2020). The state of the deal: M&A trends 2020 [PowerPoint Slides].
Galvan, J. L. & Galvan, M. C. (2017). Writing literature reviews: A guide for students of the
social and behavioral sciences (7th ed.). Routledge.
Garces, L. M., & Cogburn, C. D. (2015). Beyond declines in student body diversity: How
campus-level administrators understand a prohibition on race-conscious postsecondary
admissions policies. American Educational Research Journal, 52(5), 828-860.
Gibbs, G. R. (2018). Analyzing qualitative data (Vol. 6). Sage.
Glesne, C. (2011). Chapter 6: But is it ethical? Considering what is right. Becoming qualitative
researchers: An introduction, 4, 162-183. Pearson.
Goodman, N. (2016). The business transformation revolution: transformational change requires a
fundamental shift in mindset, organizational principles, behavior, and/or culture, as well
as organizational changes--all designed to support new business directions. Training,
53(1), 124,126.
Guerrero, S. (2008). Changes in employees’ attitudes at work following an acquisition: A
comparative study by acquisition type. Human Resource Management Journal, 18(3),
216–236. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-8583.2008.00068.x
Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L., Agrawal, S., & Plowman, S.K. (2012). Q12 Meta-analysis: The
relationship between engagement at work and organizational outcomes. Gallup, February
2013, 1-36.
106

Koi-Akrofi, G. (2016). Mergers and acquisition failure rates and perspectives on why they fail.
International Journal of Innovation and Applied Studies, 17(1), 150-158.
Legare, Thomas L. (1998). The human side of mergers and acquisitions. Human Resource
Planning, 21(1), 32-41.
Lewin K (1947a) Frontiers in group dynamics: Concept, method, and reality in social science;
equilibrium and social change. Human Relations 1(1): 5–41.
Lewin K (1947b) Group decision and social change. In: Newcomb TM and Hartley EL (eds)
Readings in Social Psychology, 330–344.
Llewellyn-Neikam, A. (2017). Socio-cultural outcomes of mergers and acquisitions: How
organizational compassion matters as a mediating factor (10689964). University of
Maryland University College ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Chapter 5: Methods. In Qualitative research design (pp. 96-104). Sage.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Nguyen, H., & Kleiner, B.H. (2003). The effective management of mergers. Leadership and
Organizational Development Journal, 24(8), 447-454.
Olivier, B. (2018). Psychometric validation of an Organizational Performance Questionnaire
(OPQ) based on the Burke-Litwin model. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 28(1), 46–51.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14330237.2017.1409479
Powley, E. (2013). The process and mechanisms of organizational healing. The Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 49(1), 42–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886312471192
Ravitch, S. M., & Carl, N. M. (2019). Qualitative research: Bridging the conceptual, theoretical,
and methodological. Sage.
107

Salame, R. (2006). Why do mergers fail? What can be done to improve their chances of success?
Key Strategy Limited.
Salkind, N. J., & Frey, B. B. (2019). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics. Sage.
Schein, E.H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (Fourth edition). Wiley.
Schein, E., & Schein, P. (2018). Organizational culture and leadership (Fifth edition). Wiley.
Schraeder, M., & Self, D.R. (2003). Enhancing the success of mergers and acquisitions: an
organizational culture perspective. Management Decision, 41(5), 511–522.
https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740310479359
Shook, L., & Roth, G. (2011). Downsizings, mergers, and acquisitions. Journal of European
Industrial Training, 35(2), 135-153. https://doi:10.1108/03090591111109343
Steger, U. & Kummer, C. (2007). Why merger and acquisition (M&A) waves recur- The vicious
circle from pressure to failure. Strategic Management Review, 24 (2) 44-63.
Stone. (2015). Burke-Litwin Organizational Assessment Survey: Reliability and Validity.
Organization Development Journal, 33(2), 33–50.
Sung, W. (2017). Employees’ responses to an organizational merger: Intraindividual change in
organizational identification, attachment, and turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology,
102(6), 910–934. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000197
Theofanidis, D., & Fountouki, A. (2019). Limitations and delimitations in the research process.
Perioperative Nursing, 7(3), 155–162. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2552022

108

Tian, G., Wang, J., Zhang, Z., & Wen, Y. (2019). Self-efficacy and work performance: The role
of work engagement. Social Behavior and Personality, 47(12), 1–7.
https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.8528
Weber, Y. (2015). Development and training at mergers and acquisitions. Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 209, pp. 254–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.229

109

Appendix A: Document Analysis Protocol
The documents to be analyzed for this study include:
1. Acquisition-related communications and announcements to employees:
a. Announcement of impending acquisition event.
b. Announcement regarding updated time and attendance and HRIS for XYZ.
c. (Day 1) Announcement and Acknowledgment of XYZ joining ABC.
d. Frequently asked questions and answers for all XYZ corporate employees upon
notification of their corporate office closure on April 3, 2020.
2. Internal, private communication for ABC acquisition integration team.
a. Talking points for April 2020 announcement of XYZ corporate office closure in June
2020.
b. Potential employee questions and answers regarding the XYZ corporate office closure
in June 2020.
c. Calendar of critical employee events for XYZ corporate office employees between
notification on April 3, 2020, through the discussion of severance eligibility on April
24, 2020.
d. Answers to Frequently Asked Questions for XYZ corporate office employees.
3. Public communications and announcement prompts:
a. (RQ1, RQ2) How do the communications and announcements invoke a tone of unity
or enthusiasm toward the acquisition event?
b. (RQ1, RQ2) Before the site closure announcement, what feelings did the
communications generate from both legacy XYZ and ABC employees?
110

c. (RQ1, RQ2) After the site closure announcement, how did the mood change among
the legacy XYZ employees? The legacy ABC employees?
d. (RQ1, RQ2) After the site closure announcement, did the dynamic of the relationship
between the legacy XYZ and ABC employees change, and if so, how?
e. (RQ1, RQ2) After the site closure announcement, did the engagement level change
among the XYZ employees? The ABC employees?
4. Private internal communication prompts:
a. (RQ1, RQ3) How do the internal communications support an environment of
engagement for the postacquisition and newly combined ABC Company?
b. (RQ3) How do the internal communications suggest a less chaotic future for the
remaining employees at the newly combined ABC Company?
c. (RQ2, RQ3) In the Q&A document, how do the questions and answers convey
empathy, support, or understanding for the anxiety and uncertainty that the XYZ
employees may be feeling with the site closure?

111

Appendix B: Interview Protocol
Note on Beta Test
Before its use, a researcher may test a study’s interview protocol to determine if the
interview question design supports the study’s research questions (Maxwell, 2013). Two XYZ
employees who did not meet the tenure requirement of the purposeful sampling criteria served as
subjects for this study’s interview protocol pilot. One was hired right before the acquisition, and
the other was hired right after. Their feedback led to changes to the 12 interview questions and
probes, which focused on engagement and organizational transformation.
Introduction
Hello and thank you for agreeing to speak with me today. Our interview and discussion
will last approximately 1 hour. The data collected from the interview will be used in dissertation
research for the Organizational Change and Leadership doctoral program at the University of
Southern California’s Rossier School of Education. The study is assessing preacquisition and
postacquisition team member engagement.
This interview and your responses will be maintained in confidence, will not be attributed
to you, and will be generalized with others’ findings. With your permission, I will record our
interview, should I need to reference our discussion during data analysis. I am the only
individual who would listen to the recording. Also, I provided a document that describes the
study’s purpose, participant involvement, and commitment to confidentiality. If at any point
during the interview you have questions or need a break, please stop me. You are under no
obligation to complete the interview. You will receive the $50 Amazon gift card regardless of
interview completion. Do you have any questions before we start?

112

Closing
Thank you. I appreciate your time and input today. Your feedback on preacquisition and
postacquisition engagement at the company is invaluable. As we discussed, all the information
you shared is confidential and will not be shared. It may be reviewed generally or in thematic
form with the feedback of other study participants. I will also offer you an electronic copy of the
study after its submission and approval, so you may review the outcome of this research project.
I could not have completed the research without your contributions. Thank you again!
Table B1 contains the crosswalk of the protocol questions to the research questions.

113

Table B1
Protocol Crosswalk to Research Questions
Interview question Probe RQ Key concept
1. How did you feel about
your preacquisition
organization when you
first learned that ABC
Company was acquiring
XYZ Company?
a. What fears, if any,
were introduced by
the acquisition
announcement?
b. Can you describe
your first
impressions, if any,
of ABC Company?
2 Engagement
2. How would you
describe your level of
engagement, if any, at
[preacquisition
company] before the
acquisition?
a. How did
communications
from ABC mitigate
your concerns, if
any, about the
acquisition?
b. Can you describe
your opinion, if any,
on the culture at
ABC before the
acquisition
occurred?
1 Engagement
3. How would you
describe your
postacquisition
engagement, if any, at
the newly combined
ABC Company?
a. How would describe
your impression, if
any, of interactions
between employees
from ABC
Company and XYZ
Company after the
acquisition?
b. What employee
behaviors did you
observe, if any,
suggesting that the
two organizations
were uniting into the
newly combined
company?
c. What was your
opinion, if any, of
the type of culture
developing at the
1, 2

Engagement
114

Interview question Probe RQ Key concept
newly combined
company?
d. Two years later, has
your opinion, if any,
changed?
4. What actions, if any,
could the leadership of
[preacquisition
company] have taken
before the acquisition to
improve your
engagement in the
newly combined
company?
a. In what ways, if at
all, did
[preacquisition
company] preview
improvements to
employee
performance
systems in the
newly combined
company? What
about improved
compensation
programs?
b. 1,
2

Engagement and
organization
(transformational)
5. What, if anything,
motivates you to remain
employed by the newly
combined company?
a. In what ways, if at
all, is your
motivation level
better than your
preacquisition
company?
b. In what ways, if at
all, is it worse than
your preacquisition
company?
2 Motivation
(transactional)
6. Could you describe the
commitment level, if
any, of the employees at
the newly combined
company?
a. How do employees
demonstrate
commitment, if at
all, at the newly
combined company?
b. How is your
commitment level, if
at all, different than
your commitment, if
any, before the
acquisition?
1, 2 Motivation
(transactional)
7. At the newly combined
company, how do
employees demonstrate
they have the
a. In what ways has the
newly combined
company offered
learning
opportunities to
2, 3 Knowledge and
task requirements
and individual
skills and abilities
(transactional)
115

Interview question Probe RQ Key concept
knowledge they need to
do their jobs?
improve employees’
knowledge?
8. Can you describe how
performance is
measured at the newly
combined company?
a. How does
performance
management
translate to
performance
improvement at the
newly combined
company?
3 Knowledge of
systems (policies
and procedures;
transactional)
9. Can you describe
leadership at the newly
combined company?
a. At the time of the
acquisition, how did
leadership actions
influence your trust
in the acquisition
process?
b. What are the themes
of the messages that
leadership delivers
to employees at the
newly combined
company?
c. Could you describe
how employees
respond to these
leadership messages
at the newly
combined company?
d. Two years
postacquisition, how
has leadership either
supported or
hindered your trust?
2, 3 Organization
(leadership;
transformational)
10. In what ways, if at all,
have employee policies
changed with the newly
combined company?
a. In what ways, if at
all, do these policies
influence your
engagement?
b. How, if at all, have
the policies changed
your work
environment?
c. How, if at all, have
the policy changes
affected your
3 Organization
systems (policies
and procedures;
transactional)
116

Interview question Probe RQ Key concept
personal job
satisfaction?
11. Can you share the
mission, vision, and
values, if any, of the
newly combined
company?
a. How, if at all, do
you demonstrate the
company’s mission,
vision, and values in
your work?
b. How, if at all, have
other employees
demonstrated the
company’s mission,
vision, and values in
their work?
3 Organization
(mission and
strategy;
transformational)
12. Overall, if at all, has the
acquisition made the
newly combined
company a better
workplace for you,
personally?
a. If yes, could you
describe the
rationale and the
approximate
postacquisition
timing of this
realization??
b. If yes, how do you
describe the newly
combined company
to prospective hires
or friends?
c. If no, are you
comfortable sharing
the reasons why you
have remained with
the newly combined
company since the
acquisition event?
d. What
recommendations do
you have for future
acquisition events?
3 Organization
(organizational
culture;
transformational)
13. How would you want to
be engaged in a future
acquisition?
1 Individual needs
and values
(transactional)

117

Table B2
Participant Responses to Acquisition Impact: Interview Protocol Question 13
Participant Q13: How would you want to be engaged in a future acquisition?
Communicate
XYZ03 I don’t know if I have any feelings towards this question. The only thing that I
can think of is the company providing information on the company that was
acquiring us.
XYZ04 At the time of announcement, fully disclose any possible scenarios regarding
retention and severance packages and job transfer opportunities. At the time
of announcement, also provide an opportunity for Q&A. The 4/3/20
announcement was especially terrible due to COVID. The Home Office
were working from home, so everyone was isolated. When we received
word that there would be a required meeting that afternoon. I assume
everyone thought the same as I did, that the call topic would certainly be
about COVID. Nope. All is well now. Had I known then what I know now it
would have been an easier pill to swallow.
Communicate, plan, train
ABC03 Provide clear communication of the strategy: the why. Also involve employees
in the transition process.
XYZ02 I would say from an engagement standpoint just being well informed would be
good. If it were an acquisition like this one where multiple systems would
be kept and used, I would be (or would have been) happy to be part of any
cross training, learning and Q&A as needed to make the acquisition
smoother.
XYZ05 If we’re acquiring, give me a layout of the new company, where my function
comes into play, how I can prepare and look for synergies.
XYZ07 In future acquisitions I would like to know the overall plan and direction the
company is going up front. I would like to be kept in the loop with
communications, meetings, and direct updates from my direct supervisor
whenever possible.
Project team/departmental representation
ABC01 I would want to be more involved overall with the changes as our team has
always been close-knit. I also think some cross-department meetings to get
to know one another and what each individual does would be helpful.
ABC06 I would love to be engaged in what’s involved-even on a project team.
ABC07 I would like to have small group meetings where employees could feel
comfortable asking questions.
XYZ06 Well, I would like to know-if this is going to happen again, there needs to be
departmental representatives during acquisition meetings. The CEO and
CFO do not know the intricacies of departmental operations.
XYZ08 Helping with due diligence and project team; I’ve now been acquired twice in
two years. Employees can provide lessons learned.
Other
118

Participant Q13: How would you want to be engaged in a future acquisition?
ABC05 I would want to help develop norms and values for the newly combined
company.
ABC08 I would not want to be engaged. It’s not really my expertise or role.
XYZ01 Because I was at the table when the offer was presented to potential suitors, I
am not sure I could ask for more engagement. I basically ran the Ops
questions. I could simply ask for that same opportunity.

119

Appendix C: Information Sheet for Exempt Research

STUDY TITLE: Building Employee Engagement Through Human Resources Transition Planning in
Mergers and Acquisitions

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Elizabeth Goodrich Cobb

FACULTY ADVISOR: Jennifer L. Phillips, DLS

You are invited to participate in a research study. Your participation is voluntary. This document
explains information about this study. You should ask questions about anything that is unclear to
you.

PURPOSE
Our interview will last approximately one hour. The data collected from the interview will be
used in dissertation research for the Organizational Change and Leadership doctoral program at
the University of Southern California’s Rossier School of Education. The study is assessing
preacquisition and postacquisition team member engagement.

You are invited to participate because you were an active employee at one of the preacquisition
companies at least 6 months before and 6 months after the acquisition event.

120

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
I will record our interview, should I need to reference our discussion during data analysis. I am
the only individual who would listen to the recording. If at any point during the interview you
have questions or need a break, please stop me. You are under no obligation to complete the
interview.

PAYMENT OR COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will receive a $50 Amazon gift card regardless of interview completion.

CONFIDENTIALITY
This interview and your responses will be maintained in confidence, will not be attributed to you,
and will be generalized with others’ findings.

The members of the research team and the University of Southern California Institutional
Review Board (IRB) may access the data from this study. The IRB reviews and monitors
research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used.

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about this study, please contact Elizabeth Cobb at ecobb@usc.edu or
the faculty advisor for this research, Jennifer L. Phillips, DLS at jlp62386@usc.edu.
121

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board at (323) 442-0114 or email
irb@usc.edu.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Unless exposed to social science research, organizational leaders may not recognize the frequency in which merger and acquisition (M&A) transformations historically resulted in failure. A reason cited for this outcome was the human element on both sides of the M&A transaction. This study explored the use of a human resources (HR) transition plan in M&A to determine whether it sustained employee engagement through the transformation event. The primary stakeholders for this inductive, qualitative study were the participants from the corporate offices of the acquiring and acquired companies. The Burke-Litwin (1992) organizational performance and change model was the conceptual framework through which the study’s three research questions were answered. The two instruments used for data collection were semi-structured, open-ended interviews and document analysis. The research findings confirmed the need for an HR transition plan, including communications and learning components. However, the HR transition plan was a subset of a larger project integration plan that research participants deemed critical to M&A integration success. Participants also implicitly expressed the need for an integration leader to coordinate the M&A integration and departmental representation. The intent of this research was to promote a positive employee experience in future M&A transformations. Additionally, the study supported a seamless M&A business transaction, accompanied by engagement, productivity, and profitability outcomes. Research findings supported the use of an HR transition plan to achieve engagement, productivity, and profitability. However, participant interview feedback indicted that leadership drove the employee engagement, productivity, and revenue wins, in lieu of an HR plan.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Why are they still here: a look at employee retention amidst the COVID-19 pandemic

PDF

Development of employee well-being initiatives to improve engagement and performance: an innovative study

PDF

Employee motivation in corporations that experienced a leadership transition

PDF

Quiet leading from the depths of pharmaceutical organizations: quality IT leader strategies for nurturing diverse project teams

PDF

Sustaining employee engagement and resilience through continuous transformation in digital organizations

PDF

Exploring the experience of acquired employees within an organization following acquisition

PDF

The path to satisfaction, connection, and persistence: implementing a strategic and structured employee onboarding program: an innovation study

PDF

Health system mergers: the significance of leaders

PDF

Donor affinity, engagement, and giving: reframing the student and alumni experience at California community colleges

PDF

Senior managers maintaining employee engagement during a crisis: analyzing success and opportunity

PDF

Digital transformation in the resources industry: an exploration of promising management practices

PDF

Influencing and motivating employee engagement: an exploratory study on employee engagement in organizational injury-prevention programs

PDF

The development of change leadership skills in aspiring community college leaders

PDF

Mental health disabilities in the workplace: exploring human resource professionals’ practices

PDF

Exploring mindfulness with employee engagement: an innovation study

PDF

Reducing employee turnover through organizational identity

PDF

Organizational levers for frontline health care employee well-being in long-term care

PDF

Keeping virtual team members engaged in their roles: an impossible task or a paramount necessity for an increasingly globalized world

PDF

Workplace bullying of women leaders in the United States

PDF

Analyzing the implementation of a learning management system into a post-merger & acquisition organization and its effects on sales performance (improvement model)

Asset Metadata

Creator Cobb, Elizabeth Goodrich (author)

Core Title Building employee engagement through human resources transition planning in mergers and acquisitions

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2022-08

Publication Date 08/04/2022

Defense Date 07/15/2022

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Communication,culture,employee engagement,HR,human resources,Integration,leadership,Learning,M&A,mergers and acquisitions,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational transformation,post-merger,pre-merger,transformational leadership,transition,transition planning

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Phillips, Jennifer L. (committee chair), Canny, Eric A. (committee member), Krop, Cathy (committee member)

Creator Email 2elizabethcobb@gmail.com,toelizabethcobb@outlook.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC111376175

Unique identifier UC111376175

Legacy Identifier etd-CobbElizab-11105

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Cobb, Elizabeth Goodrich

Type texts

Source 20220805-usctheses-batch-970 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu